Jimquisition: Toxic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

UberPubert:
[quote="Zachary Amaranth" post="6.831046.20278336"]

From the Jedi perspective, perhaps. But then, only a Sith speaks in absolutes. :p

Except the idea that only a Sith speaks in absolute is an absolute, so a Jedi who told you that must be a Sith or a liar.

I wish I could get angry. I just have an intense loathing, and dissapointment of the status quo, and the supporters of it.

I generally don't direct it towards one person as I recognize there's a hierarchy of unknowns, and there's bright spots here and there. I'll praise the bright spots if I can remember them in all the muck of crap, and the occassion arises.

Heck, even if I did want to aim it at someone, or some particular group, I really can't. What I loathe is too spread out.

tehpiemaker:

See, you're sounding so much more reasonable now, but you didn't make this argument before. You sounded more like, in your previous quote, that you thought that passion/emotion has no place whatsoever when it came to these sort of affairs. I personally think that logic should dictate HOW you perform, but not WHY you perform. However, "logic" and "grey areas" don't go together the way you use it. Using logic to dictate philosophy and is about believing that there is always a correct answer, but you and I both no that there are situations where there are no correct answers.

Also, if I sound presumptuous it's only because I want to sound like I know what I'm saying. It's the same deal when I write a paper for college. You can't use a bunch of "I thinks" or "Maybes" because that makes you and your paper sound unsure about what you're saying.

If you think I sound more or less reasonable it's because you've misinterpreted what I've said, so to avoid the risk of sounding vague I will repeat myself. Yes, passion and emotion have no place in economics. It is a loose science structured around math and social psychology - and don't let the latter term fool you, it's use is rooted deeply in numerical findings.

The how's and why's of performance get lost when you don't assign them to anything definable. If you asked why I should be angry, I'd give you a reason, and if you asked how I'd go about expressing that, I'd reply with a thoughtful argument that backed up my reasoning. Sure, I was angry, but that's not good enough to persuade someone to my way of thinking nor do I think anger is proof that something is wrong, only a sign that I don't like it and is perhaps worthy of further investigation as to why that is.

Logic and grey areas go to together because, when in doubt, you're supposed to use the former to navigate the latter, not because they're in any way the same but because a morally grey area asks difficult questions that might elicit less than reasonable answers. Sometimes logic is about finding the most agreeable outcome in a no-win scenario.

UberPubert:
If you think I sound more or less reasonable it's because you've misinterpreted what I've said, so at the risk of sounding vague I will repeat myself. Yes, passion and emotion have no place in economics. It is a loose science structured around math and social psychology - and don't let the latter term fool you, it's use is rooted deeply in numerical findings.

The how's and why's of performance get lost when you don't assign them to anything definable. If you asked why I should be angry, I'd give you a reason, and if you asked how I'd go about expressing that, I'd reply with a thoughtful argument that backed up my reasoning. Sure, I was angry, but that's not good enough to persuade someone to my way of thinking nor do I think anger is proof that something is wrong, only a sign that I don't like it and is perhaps worthy of further investigation as to why that is.

Logic and grey areas go to together because, when in doubt, you're supposed to use the former to navigate the latter, not because they're in any way the same but because a morally grey area asks difficult questions that might illicit less than reasonable answers. Sometimes logic is about finding the most agreeable outcome in a no-win scenario.

You're right, I did misinterpret you, because now you sound much less reasonable than I thought you were. Looks like I've got egg on my face.

Looks to my like we have a Heisenberg situation on hand. Heisenberg created a theory about subatomic particles stating that the more you know about the position of the particle, the less you know its momentum and vice verse. Basically, I'm saying that the more educated you are about the mathematical and sociological principles of economics, the less you're able to do anything good with it because you people like you have the skill to do something but have no real motivation except to make money.

The problem is that you feel you NEED to persuade anyone. If you had a backbone you'd realize you don't need majority approval to do something. Art, passion, and emotion have no place in a purely logical world. That world is one ruled by machines: computers and living calculators. It's not a world for humans, who must think in abstract in order to create fiction. Passion is what makes life worth living. Passion is what makes you feel obligated to convince me, in order to create your vision of a better world one person at a time.

Another fluke in your "logic" is that you think it and grey moral dilemmas can coexist, yet you say that the reason is because it helps make a better decision out of the choices presented to you. Is it a dilemma if there is a choice that is obviously better than the others? Sure, it's not the ideal choice but it is still the choice you think should be made. Best choice=right choice. If there is a right choice then the dilemma is not grey, it is black and white.

tehpiemaker:

You're right, I did misinterpret you, because now you sound much less reasonable than I thought you were. Looks like I've got egg on my face.

Looks to my like we have a Heisenberg situation on hand. Heisenberg created a theory about subatomic particles stating that the more you know about the position of the particle, the less you know its momentum and vice verse. Basically, I'm saying that the more educated you are about the mathematical and sociological principles of economics, the less you're able to do anything good with it because you people like you have the skill to do something but have no real motivation except to make money.

The problem is that you feel you NEED to persuade anyone. If you had a backbone you'd realize you don't need majority approval to do something. Art, passion, and emotion have no place in a purely logical world. That world is one ruled by machines: computers and living calculators. It's not a world for humans, who must think in abstract in order to create fiction. Passion is what makes life worth living. Passion is what makes you feel obligated to convince me, in order to create your vision of a better world one person at a time.

Another fluke in your "logic" is that you think it and grey moral dilemmas can coexist, yet you say that the reason is because it helps make a better decision out of the choices presented to you. Is it a dilemma if there is a choice that is obviously better than the others? Sure, it's not the ideal choice but it is still the choice you think should be made. Best choice=right choice. If there is a right choice then the dilemma is not grey, it is black and white.

Again, you have a very strange way of making assumptions about the way I think, and you seem to keep missing a detail: I don't view the world in black and white, I do feel emotion, and I know others do to. I've yet to claim otherwise. Because I prefer logic does not exclude these things, it only provides what I believe to be a better alternative to going along with these gut feelings, especially when people's gut feelings conflict with one another.

You've also mistaken my desire to persuade people with a need of their approval to do what I think is right. Persuasion is for getting people who disagree with your proposition or are indifferent to do what you say, not to allow you to do it. I would say for instance, if you want to make a video game about something, distribute it how you please and charge what you like for the privileged of playing it (or charge nothing at all!) that is entirely up to you, but, if you'd like to persuade someone to do those things you're going to need a reasonable argument as to why. Sure, you could just rant at them but considering it's probably over the internet they can easily choose to ignore you if you make them angry enough or do what Phil Fish did and retire altogether. You don't need to convince people you're right for reasons other than you're angry, but it sure helps.

Logic and grey moral dilemmas can coexist because while our morals, ethics and feelings don't match up with it, we still recognize that there is a logical answer to be found. As an example: You are the proud parent of two children who you love equally, and you would do anything in the world for them, but terrible circumstances make you choose which one you wish to live, and which one you wish to die. Now, one of the children is perfectly healthy and you have every reason to believe they will live a long and prosperous life, but the other is quite sickly, perhaps they have cancer, and don't have very long to live, regardless of how the current situation pans out. You will choose for the healthy one to live, right? It's not an easy decision to make in the moment, it's in an extreme circumstance, it's not one that anyone should have to make, but if you're trying to find the best possible outcome to this terrible situation, you have to measure the quality of one life over another and find that the healthy child is better off living.

This is where logic usually caters to a majority rule, "needs of the many" and all that.

Valderis:

erttheking:

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.

Oh no I understand what it means, I'm just not convinced it should really be considered an insult or is even that good of an insult. Frankly as insults go it's almost like saying "you're a Communist!" it's more or less saying "You have a view that I disagree with and you should be ashamed of that!"

1337mokro:

Deadagent:

erttheking:

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that.

And this is the problem with discussion about this topic, you ain't even listening

Anita deserved rape threats?

Nope. No one deserves rape threats, but you know what the difference between her rape threats and everyone elses rape threats are? She used those threats to gain money. While other people ignored them because it's the internet.

She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face?

Does Obama deserve a game about him getting punched in the face? How about George Bush? Because those games are out there.

You can't win against the White Knights and the Feminists.

None of them listen to what you say or will take your words way out of context.

Right now I am the guy that says rape threats are 100% okay because I referred to the toxic response in general and did not list the specific toxic replies I approved of and disapproved of. It's best to strawman the other's position with extreme hyperbole than to admit to the fact you donated money to fund a glorified clip show which was ripped from the internet for about 50%.

It's hard to admit the fact that you basically donated money to someone so they could mismanage it into random game shopping, barely in depth commentary and gross misrepresentation of the games featured in the show which on top of that consist of stolen footage (because that's what it is when you don't credit people). Now we just wait for the first guy who says I am so sexist because I mentioned she wasted the money on shopping and that is a female stereotype, just wait someone will claim that.

The positive side of this Sarkeesian debacle though it that more intelligent people came out of the woodworks to tear her videos to pieces. It's kind of like the Prequels to me, the reviews and replies are worth the production of the crappy original material.

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

UberPubert:
Again, you have a very strange way of making assumptions about the way I think, and you seem to keep missing a detail: I don't view the world in black and white, I do feel emotion, and I know others do to. I've yet to claim otherwise. Because I prefer logic does not exclude these things, it only provides what I believe to be a better alternative to going along with these gut feelings, especially when people's gut feelings conflict with one another.

You've also mistaken my desire to persuade people with a need of their approval to do what I think is right. Persuasion is for getting people who disagree with your proposition or are indifferent to do what you say, not to allow you to do it. I would say for instance, if you want to make a video game about something, distribute it how you please and charge what you like for the privileged of playing it (or charge nothing at all!) that is entirely up to you, but, if you'd like to persuade someone to do those things you're going to need a reasonable argument as to why. Sure, you could just rant at them but considering it's probably over the internet they can easily choose to ignore you if you make them angry enough or do what Phil Fish did and retire altogether. You don't need to convince people you're right for reasons other than you're angry, but it sure helps.

Logic and grey moral dilemmas can coexist because while our morals, ethics and feelings don't match up with it, we still recognize that there is a logical answer to be found. As an example: You are the proud parent of two children who you love equally, and you would do anything in the world for them, but terrible circumstances make you choose which one you wish to live, and which one you wish to die. Now, one of the children is perfectly healthy and you have every reason to believe they will live a long and prosperous life, but the other is quite sickly, perhaps they have cancer, and don't have very long to live, regardless of how the current situation pans out. You will choose for the healthy one to live, right? It's not an easy decision to make in the moment, it's in an extreme circumstance, it's not one that anyone should have to make, but if you're trying to find the best possible outcome to this terrible situation, you have to measure the quality of one life over another and find that the healthy child is better off living.

This is where logic usually caters to a majority rule, "needs of the many" and all that.

Dude, I never ever said that you couldn't feel emotions or passion. You're human, and to be human is to er (and emotions and all that). But you clearly don't think being "human" is ideal, whether you knew it or not. Because you idealize logic--and logic means that there is always a right answer--it means you wish to be "higher" than human. Remember, there is what people say they think and what they really think. What you think you think might not be true. Yes, it sounds like I'm presumptuous but that's because I think you don't really believe what you're saying.

BA! You're second paragraph makes no sense! The only reason to debate someone is to get them do something for you? By that logic it that means YOU'RE trying to make ME do something you, or you at least expect something out of this. Well, you're not. You won't get me to do anything for you even if you do manage do persuade me. It sounds like you expect something every time you win an argument. Sorry, but the most I might give you is an internet cookie. That's like me saying that I believe if I win this internet debate I expect you to go spread my word. I don't. I don't expect you to do anything.

No, Logic and grey cannot co-exist. As long you think that one answer is superior then that makes that answer the correct answer. "Grey" does not mean that the decision is hard or unpleasant. It means that there is a right and wrong answer. Right and wrong is black and white. That's why I believe you believe in a Black and White world, not a grey one.

I was so waiting for Jim to play "Toxic" somewhere in the video.
Perfect ending :D

I believe the angry, gelatinous blob of a online gaming community does have its place in the industry. For example, they got to change that thing of an ending for Mass Effect 3 and got it to be tolerable. Another would be the former announcement of where Mad Max wasn't going to be Australian; the fuck was that. Eventually the community got them to change back to Australian, but who knows what that'll sound like or if its even in Australia. Th blob of a community has it merits even if those merits can be down right hateful.

That brittany spears bit at the end had me rolling.

That con footage tells me either we are indulging Jim Sterling too much, OR we need to indulge him more to the point where he becomes a gaming messiah capable of delivering some real wrath unto the publishers.

Probably too much. Probably.

tehpiemaker:

Dude, I never ever said that you couldn't feel emotions or passion. You're human, and to be human is to er (and emotions and all that). But you clearly don't think being "human" is ideal, whether you knew it or not. Because you idealize logic--and logic means that there is always a right answer--it means you wish to be "higher" than human. Remember, there is what people say they think and what they really think. What you think you think might not be true. Yes, it sounds like I'm presumptuous but that's because I think you don't really believe what you're saying.

BA! You're second paragraph makes no sense! The only reason to debate someone is to get them do something for you? By that logic it that means YOU'RE trying to make ME do something you, or you at least expect something out of this. Well, you're not. You won't get me to do anything for you even if you do manage do persuade me. It sounds like you expect something every time you win an argument. Sorry, but the most I might give you is an internet cookie. That's like me saying that I believe if I win this internet debate I expect you to go spread my word. I don't. I don't expect you to do anything.

No, Logic and grey cannot co-exist. As long you think that one answer is superior then that makes that answer the correct answer. "Grey" does not mean that the decision is hard or unpleasant. It means that there is a right and wrong answer. Right and wrong is black and white. That's why I believe you believe in a Black and White world, not a grey one.

I think humanity entails more than feeling emotion, and "to be human is to err" is why I'd like to use a higher method of thinking. When humans err it is usually on the side irrationality, when malice, jealousy, and paranoia take hold. When we look back on terrible things people did we realize what they did is wrong because we see they were being unreasonable, because the information they operated on was faulty, even though they might swear they were right. Without logic it's just their word against yours, the rule of moral relativity, where no one's wrong because from their unique perspective they're right. But civilization as we know it cannot exist if we do not reach a common ground and speak on matters in a reasonable fashion.

Well I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, I'm only explaining my position, as you keep misunderstanding it. I have no objective to "win" and have no real fear of "losing" because we're no longer arguing about the topic at hand (which I've already made my point on elsewhere).

In my example I only mean to demonstrate that by all moral, ethical, emotional means the decision to choose one beloved child over another is impossible. In a loving parent's eyes both children are equal. It is only when the value of one child's life over another expressed as a mathematical equation (X>Y) is the only measure left to judge it by and is the core principle of logic. Logic does, yes, present things as black and white, but obviously not everyone uses logic, so the world remains grey.

UberPubert:
I think humanity entails more than feeling emotion, and "to be human is to err" is why I'd like to use a higher method of thinking. When humans err it is usually on the side irrationality, when malice, jealousy, and paranoia take hold. When we look back on terrible things people did we realize what they did is wrong because we see they were being unreasonable, because the information they operated on was faulty, even though they might swear they were right. Without logic it's just their word against yours, the rule of moral relativity, where no one's wrong because from their unique perspective they're right. But civilization as we know it cannot exist if we do not reach a common ground and speak on matters in a reasonable fashion.

Well I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, I'm only explaining my position, as you keep misunderstanding it. I have no objective to "win" and have no real fear of "losing" because we're no longer arguing about the topic at hand (which I've already made my point on elsewhere).

In my example I only mean to demonstrate that by all moral, ethical, emotional means the decision to choose one beloved child over another is impossible. In a loving parent's eyes both children are equal. It is only when the value of one child's life over another expressed as a mathematical equation (X>Y) is the only measure left to judge it by and is the core principle of logic. Logic does, yes, present things as black and white, but obviously not everyone uses logic, so the world remains grey.

But what do you consider "higher"? To make mistakes is human nature, and it's unreasonable to think anyone can be perfect. Here's the truth. What happens if this "utopia" of yours comes to fruition? Will unhappiness cease? Will it put a stop to death? Can a perfect world be created where everyone single person is happy? What is your definition of "higher"? The truth is terrible things happen all the time, and will continue to happen no matter what because it is human nature. Humans cannot not aspire to be greater than they are. You're chasing an ideal. But there are people who are smart, they have more information than those that surround them, and they use to spread more fear and gain power.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you. If I am, you're not even trying to correct. I am pretty sure I understand you just fine. So if you don't have an objective to "win" and no fear of "losing", then what was the point of what you were trying to say before? I'm not psychic, pal. You have to be clear in what you're trying to say.

That last bit there,"Logic does, yes, present things as black and white, but obviously not everyone uses logic, so the world remains grey" doesn't make any damn sense. I'm getting the sense that you're trying to mess with the usage of words to fit your own agenda. "The world remains grey." What is that even supposed to mean? The world isn't grey because of "tough choices" or the "people who make the world a harsh place". "Grey", at least in the context we're using here, means that there is no right or wrong choice. As long as every choice in the world is presented with a clear right answer then that makes the world a Black and White place.

Jim is more or less right, at least for those who are used to being angry or getting outraged at things. If you have anger and you can't not be angry, by all means, harness it and direct it away from those who don't need or deserve it.

Me, I don't get it. I don't think actual anger is ever constructive, because life is too damn short. A lot of what Jim does sounds angry, but is really just humorous, sensible indignation, so maybe he sees his indignation as anger, and it's just an issue of semantics. And different personalities, to be sure.

So yeah, don't feel like you need anger if you don't have it, but if you do, handle with care. Or if you're angry more than you're not, you could try being happy instead. Too much cortisol wreaks serious havoc on your brain. Me, I just like to play good games and talk about them with people on the internet sometimes, and I'm often puzzled by how angry other people are about stuff they could so easily brush off, and I know many others feel the same way. I'm almost done with Tomb Raider on Steam, which I got for just 10 bucks on Amazon, and it's pretty sweet. I hope the ending is cool.

Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

erttheking:

Oh no I understand what it means, I'm just not convinced it should really be considered an insult or is even that good of an insult. Frankly as insults go it's almost like saying "you're a Communist!" it's more or less saying "You have a view that I disagree with and you should be ashamed of that!"

There was a time when the term Communist was an insult, probably still is to some people. Who knows what the future holds, maybe it'll catch on and "White Knight" will be the new "Communist"?

SamTheNewb:
Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

For as irrational a medium as the internet, that was an incredibly rational argument. You're right, there isn't much proper criticism around these parts.

Laziness probably is a big part of it.

I really don't think people are getting more angry, for starters. In second place, people saying that anger should be directed, controlled, employed in some sense or capacity must be saints who have never been enraged.

Now, for some clarification: People were just as angry some years ago, and then 40 years ago, or a hundred. The real issue, I think, is technology and this era of instant communication we live in. People were just as angry and numerous in relative terms before our times, we just never heard of it. If you were playing a game and became enraged at it, you would go to your desk and start writing an angry letter. When you were about half done, your anger would have probably ebbed, and you would be able to rationalize the issue at least a bit more than before.

That can't be done anymore, there's no cool down period. You get enraged, and rage blinds people, there's no directing or doing anything with it except venting it, and the venting is right there at your fingertips. The game makes you angry, you basically alt-tab and go to a forum, your blog, twitter, tumblr, reddit, and who knows how many other sites more, and you post your enraged comments in all of them at the same time. Someone is bound to "hear" about your outrage.

Please don't suggest that people control their emotions, specially the "burst" ones like anger, that's just wishful, utopic thinking. Humans have been trying for millennia and we are still at square one. Second, remember what your parents or grandparents have surely told you at least once before. When someone is angry, you ignore them. An angry person doesn't know what he or she is talking about, literally. It's been scientifically proven that anger gives you tunnel vision and it overrides many of the more rational areas of the brain. Let them vent, calm down, and then try to rationalize the issue. Of course that cool down period might be quite long depending on the person.

Ryleh:
Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

Alright, let me paint an image for you, the future of game developers over here having the boot of the all powerful corporate publisher's boots on their face as they laugh maniacally as they hold your favorite titles hostage as the dissolved companies' employees are reduced to soulless husks making cheap F2P browser games and ironing out MMS bugs. Meanwhile overseas Japan refuses to bring decent games over while the trash keeps piling on the shores as it smells horribly over here. To top it off, their most popular franchises are slashed and burned in exchange for games designed for the "COD audience".

That my friend is why we are negative and skeptical.

gyrobot:

Ryleh:
Although toxicity is something that is by no means unique to gamer culture, there is definitely a trend towards negativity and excessive skepticism among gamers. Now I'm not saying to stop being skeptical, it keeps us all from vegetating and allows us to direct our anger as Jim discussed. But I've definitely noticed a trend in many gamer circles where it's "cool" to hate on everything the moment it comes out. Every time a new console, smartphone, game, etc is announced there's always several people all racing each other to hate it first, competing with each other to have the most reasons as to why it sucks even though no-ones had a chance to try it yet. It reminds me of the kind of people this Apple vs Samsung war attracts, with people blindly supporting one or the other and hating the other with the utmost venom. Being in love with a brand / product / service is a beautiful thing, it helps you, it helps the company, etc etc etc. Hating something on the other hand does nothing. It's ok to dislike something and have your reasons, but blind, malicious hate wastes your time and contributes nothing to the greater community.

Alright, let me paint an image for you, the future of game developers over here having the boot of the all powerful corporate publisher's boots on their face as they laugh maniacally as they hold your favorite titles hostage as the dissolved companies' employees are reduced to soulless husks making cheap F2P browser games and ironing out MMS bugs. Meanwhile overseas Japan refuses to bring decent games over while the trash keeps piling on the shores as it smells horribly over here. To top it off, their most popular franchises are slashed and burned in exchange for games designed for the "COD audience".

That my friend is why we are negative and skeptical.

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about people hating on every new game and/or piece of technology before it's even come out.

Whats more I'm implying that we should support the good games rather than hating on the bad games in order to stop your image from happening.

[Deleted Post...but only because I want to....]

God damn that dance. So good.

Tenkage:
You are a fuggin idiot Jim, a pathetic sad little idiot who is proof that gaming journalism is a sham. Oh by the way escapist, I know you said I am not allowed to critize your "breadwinners" but can I ask why, if he is allowed to comment on what he see's, why am I not allowed?

It is sad, but the escapist is a cespool of coruption, Jim, please have fun cleaning out Anita's crevices with your tounge, as you have nothing better to do with it, I am done, this place is not a place to find real news. Shame too, now the only person who I can trust is Yahtzee.

You forget that these forums have rules. The most important of these is "don't be a jerk". These rules don't apply to the videos that content providers upload. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant - those ARE the rules. This is why personal attacks on people (such as what you aimed at Jim) are not allowed in the forums.

I am deeply ashamed at how quickly I "got" the joke of the stinger in this episode.

Even if you are talking to a group that doesn't exist like Moviebob a few months ago and still didn't dare to critisize Anita, you made me laugh unexpected and left me positively amused. I find myself awaiting your next episode with delight and that hasn't happened in quite some time.

Desert Punk:

Valderis:

erttheking:

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.

Online it takes a more egotistic drive. Coming to the defence of women or other parties just so that they appear to be the good guy, sensitive, empathetic, ect, a knight in shining white armor.

White Knighting: a derogatory term devised by internet psychopaths in an attempt to demonize altruism and basic human empathy in an attempt to minimize opposition to their tendency to abuse those who don't deserve it.

erttheking:
Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

Lightknight:
A video where Jim explains that anger is not bad and wants us to correctly focus it, to use it as a tool more appropriately?

Holy crap, Jim IS Palpatine... it isn't a galaxy far far away in distance, it's far away in time. Jim is the future emporer of the Empire we'll inevitably form...

Jim, I agree with most everything you said. Though I'm hesitant to relieve CEOs of the lion's share of responsibility when the buck generally does stop there.

Hold it... This is the same Jim Sterling who made the "Dude Bro" episode which consisted of an entire strawman.

This is the same Jim Sterling who, on Destructoid, decided to say that two BF4 posts represented modern gaming.

This is the same Jim Sterling who continues to talk about Anita as "the one that spoke up" while ignoring ANY and ALL evidence that she's been dishonest about her presentation and what she stated was her mission.

And this is the same Jim Sterling who looks down on EA for their blatant dishonesty while ignoring Anita's.

It's truly sad when someone can be such a blatant hypocrite and people believe a demagogue over actual critical analysis.

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!

Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

EDIT: Can't believe I actually have to say this specifically but seeing as 6 people already had their heads explode when reading this post I am going to do it anyway. I had thought it to be unnecessary but hey, guess I gave people to much credit for being reasonable, faith in humanity adjusted back to -56 points.

Of course the rape threats, death threats and other assault or whatever else kind of threat you can think of is not warranted. It is never warranted to threaten anyone, however never in this video was the word toxic response used to refer to such absolutely disgusting things.

No the toxic response was one where people go mad with rage at perceived slights or single out a person to blame for all the faults in a production. Not once was the word toxic response used in the manner of actual threats, yet some people saw it as me openly supporting sending death threats to people making pointless videos on the internet. Well let me assure you that it was just your over active imaginations. I suggest not spending so much time online, you might learn that there exist decent people that don't approve of acting like despicable human beings.

The toxic response I was alluding to when I said it was deserved was about people calling Sarkeesian a fraud, incompetent, a swindler, a feminist propagandist, a pointless feminist version of TV tropes and so on. You know the regular hate mail that won't land you in fucking jail and turned out to be nothing but 100% accurate accusations. The kind of toxic response referred to several times during the video itself where developers were called frauds, hacks, conmen, liars and so on to let them know exactly where they screwed up? The kind of toxic response with the Jimquisition seal of approval?

Are we 100% clear on this now? Threats = Bad. Criticism and accusations = Okay. Or am I going to get a few more pointless messages railing at me about how I am a horrible person for supporting rape threats?

Actually, there's a NUMBER of legitimate questions to Anita Sarkeesian which Jim has been ignoring for quite some time.

You should look at her blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo

So why would Anita's camp go to 4chan to troll? Why is it that when people let out information about the dishonesty of Anita, it's been deleted (Escapist had a thread deleted concerning how she used her backers for research)?

Why has it been found that she's also not a gamer, used trolls to make money, ignores critical analysis and criticisms, maintains a double standard based on gender, goes to prove her assumptions based on creationist research, makes money in private donations, and has only been interested in gaming since it made her money after researching it since 2012?

And when you actually look at the comments, you see maybe six comments that are "tits or gtfo" while most of them are negative criticisms like "Why do you need your Kickstarter money?"

Further issues are how she manipulated her Youtube page to funnel all commentary to her video.

Yet these are all valid questions to which NO ONE wants to answer. It's just "the comments were vile" based on assumptions that it was all white male gamers doing it. How about speaking up about the corruption on Anita's part? Or how blatantly obvious it is that most gaming press are believing more in cronyism than they are in an actual debate on the topic? (Directed more at Sterling)

UberPubert:
devs rarely respond to "venom" in any meaningful way.

Aside from retconning a shitty ME3 ending with DLC, admitting that D3 was a pile of shit, firing CEOs over simcity, and having almost all of the anti-consumer DRM stripped from the Xbone... yeah, aside from all that, venom hasn't done shit. Phooey on venom.

so i guess its time for toxic avenger to make a comeback?

a well placed rage is a powerful weapon, but like a true death ray, it is not something humans are capable of controlling yet.

1337mokro:

erttheking:
Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

What was I supposed to take "More intelligent people are coming out to rip her videos apart" implying that people who liked her videos weren't intelligent as? Or "You can't win against feminists and white knights, they won't listen to you" as? Even if you don't outright say certain things, the way you word your arguments kind of does. Actually while it didn't specifically mention those threats it did mention how disgusting the backlash against Anita was, so you'd think you could understand why I'd have the rape threats along with everything else disgusting that's been going on in the front of my mind.

I went back and read your post and to be honest it just came off as the same justifications people have been using time and time again to justify the hate against Anita.

You said you supported the toxicity against her, and no offense, but off of this website I didn't see much in the terms of backlash that didn't directly descend into outright sexist territory. Was I suppose to automatically assume that you didn't mean that? You didn't leave much evidence to support that idea.

All right then, I'll reply to the entire concept behind your first post right now. The arguments against Anita have always been flimsy in my book. It's always been rather circumstantial evidence like the taken footage that somehow proves that she never played the games. Frankly I don't see the connection. Clearly she knew the game and what goes on in it, you can disagree with her assessment but I don't see how it proves she never played them. For all I know she put them in there as colorful filler, heck the Nostalgia Critic did the same thing with Roosterteeth footage. Should she have credited them? Probably, but still the "never played any of the games" is a massive leap. Plus even if people were right, even if people were right about every last thing that they said about her, I'd still find it hard to support them because frankly this "threat" that they're dealing with just isn't that big and they've responded to it with the same priority as a man who kills a fly with a flamethrower. Not to mention insulting men and gamers on a whole? I admit I never watched video three out of sheer boredom but I don't really remember that.

Well then I apologize you accusing you of supporting them, but like I said if you know a woman has been receiving a lot of toxicity, and you know among them are very well known threats, you should really consider being specific when you say that she deserves the backlash. You said that five other people came to the same conclusions so clearly it isn't just me.

Again, that's kind of making a jump to a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, but even if it ended up being true, I have to say I have a hard time hating her for it because frankly backlash against her was so overkill that I really can't sympathize with the people who hate her.

And you want to know the sad thing? I think her videos are boring as Hell. Always have done since day one. I think her arguments are flawed too. But people can never seem to be satisfied by saying they don't like her arguments or think her videos are circumstantial, they have to discredit every last thing that she says, making claims based off of circumstantial evidence.

1337mokro:

erttheking:
Snip

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

Again I never said everyone who disagreed with me was a moron, this must be a habit of yours cause you seem quite good at this. I said everyone who just assumed I was in support of rape threats when I never mention those specifically nor does the video this comment was made on ever mention those kind of threats, have their own little agenda they have to work out so to them it was a nice little mistake on my part to assume I didn't have to specify the obvious.

"OMG I didn't even have to read the rest of your post because you are a horrible scumbag"

You can disagree with me and be a perfectly intelligent person, however 6/6 people that messages me all went on about the rape threats and not once addressed the actual point in my video. They were far to busy telling me how big of an asshole I was for supporting those people that threatened her.

In fact one of them, namely you, were the first to allude that I am in support of rape threats, that when I said she deserved the toxic response that I was somehow saying it was all right to threaten people (hyperbole + strawman) and then went on to address not a single point I made after that single sentence, congratulations you replied to a post you read for about 5%!

You want to know the funny part? I never even considered those threats as actual replies or comments. These don't factor into what I consider responses of any community, no matter how foul mouthed the hate mail gets there is a special category for when they cross the line into threats. I automatically filter those out into a separate category called human scum.

This really is all I have to say about this and will say about this because it's quite a pointless argument.

Though isn't it nice that she could use those threats to make a bigger profit than if she had just gotten the regular hate mail. Not to mention it gave her a nice platform to dismiss real criticism with as "hate" or "trolling".

Always look on the bright side of life! Dadum, dadum, dadum, dadum!

You said she deserved the response, the rape threats were part of the response, at best you should have considered your words more carefully, stop blaming other people because you were unclear.

It really doesn't matter what Anita did or said what maters is we are now talking about the issue she raised so she succeeded, several feminists are now consulting for triple A companies and people are being hired to ensure the sexist rubbish at least has some counterpoint.

We are finally going to see some good female characters in non indie games and that is great.

Gindil:

1337mokro:
Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it. Making nothing but a meandering, disjointed, contextual jumbled clip show where she points at things and says "Look at that.", no discussion of the effects it has or the possible reason behind it's use. No just a fancy clip show really. Kind of what TVtropes does but in video form.

Now was the toxic bile deserved at first? No, it was mostly knee jerk manchildren crying about their toys being shown in a bad light. Are they deserved now? Completely because it ended up being nothing but a biased clip shows that regularly insults gamers as a whole and men specifically multiple times by insinuating these types of people are nothing more than cavemen mentality idiots that can feel exactly 3 emotions, anger, shame and arousal.

Not to mention the blatant plagiarism where footage is used from other people without even crediting them. If I pulled shit like that I'd be expelled from the university.

So can we stop playing up Sarkeesian as anything but a lazy fraud with a feminist agenda? Are we done with the white knighting Jim?

PS: I have watched what has been released of the series so far and found it severely lacking in substance, discussion and depth.

PPS: Also goodbye Phil Fish!!!

Misguided rage is the nasty side effect of the rage turbines over heating. Sadly it is also something we can get past and we should just do so. You can't put out the rage fire but you can suffocate it by taking away it's oxygen, your attention.

EDIT: Can't believe I actually have to say this specifically but seeing as 6 people already had their heads explode when reading this post I am going to do it anyway. I had thought it to be unnecessary but hey, guess I gave people to much credit for being reasonable, faith in humanity adjusted back to -56 points.

Of course the rape threats, death threats and other assault or whatever else kind of threat you can think of is not warranted. It is never warranted to threaten anyone, however never in this video was the word toxic response used to refer to such absolutely disgusting things.

No the toxic response was one where people go mad with rage at perceived slights or single out a person to blame for all the faults in a production. Not once was the word toxic response used in the manner of actual threats, yet some people saw it as me openly supporting sending death threats to people making pointless videos on the internet. Well let me assure you that it was just your over active imaginations. I suggest not spending so much time online, you might learn that there exist decent people that don't approve of acting like despicable human beings.

The toxic response I was alluding to when I said it was deserved was about people calling Sarkeesian a fraud, incompetent, a swindler, a feminist propagandist, a pointless feminist version of TV tropes and so on. You know the regular hate mail that won't land you in fucking jail and turned out to be nothing but 100% accurate accusations. The kind of toxic response referred to several times during the video itself where developers were called frauds, hacks, conmen, liars and so on to let them know exactly where they screwed up? The kind of toxic response with the Jimquisition seal of approval?

Are we 100% clear on this now? Threats = Bad. Criticism and accusations = Okay. Or am I going to get a few more pointless messages railing at me about how I am a horrible person for supporting rape threats?

Actually, there's a NUMBER of legitimate questions to Anita Sarkeesian which Jim has been ignoring for quite some time.

You should look at her blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo

So why would Anita's camp go to 4chan to troll? Why is it that when people let out information about the dishonesty of Anita, it's been deleted (Escapist had a thread deleted concerning how she used her backers for research)?

Why has it been found that she's also not a gamer, used trolls to make money, ignores critical analysis and criticisms, maintains a double standard based on gender, goes to prove her assumptions based on creationist research, makes money in private donations, and has only been interested in gaming since it made her money after researching it since 2012?

And when you actually look at the comments, you see maybe six comments that are "tits or gtfo" while most of them are negative criticisms like "Why do you need your Kickstarter money?"

Further issues are how she manipulated her Youtube page to funnel all commentary to her video.

Yet these are all valid questions to which NO ONE wants to answer. It's just "the comments were vile" based on assumptions that it was all white male gamers doing it. How about speaking up about the corruption on Anita's part? Or how blatantly obvious it is that most gaming press are believing more in cronyism than they are in an actual debate on the topic? (Directed more at Sterling)

Probably because none of those things matter in the slightest even if they were not incredibly dubious in veracity none of them have anything to do with the actual point that was made by her and her videos. It's pretty pathetic that so many people are attacking her rather than her points, but the simple reason is they lost the actual content argument and are now just reduced to ad hominems and desperately raising any minuscule and laughably unimportant smear they can find to avid discussing the actual topic.

If you seriously think "she has only been interested in gaming since 2012" is anything but laughable as a critique you really are out of your depth.

 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