Jimquisition: Toxic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Mr Sterling the problem your talk about Don Mattrick is that we didn't spray venom at him because he was the CEO of Xbox, we did it because he sprayed it at us first telling us all to stick to the xbox 360 if we wanted to still play xbox 360 games or saying the world is always online. Our venom was a direct response to his own dickishness, I don't think Microsoft wanted him to insult the consumers as much as he did and outright murder any chance the xbox one had of competing with the PS4.

josak:

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.

Ah, the confirmation bias is out. Okay... Why is it that there's videos of people corroborating the research that she was only interested in video games in 2012?

She stated herself that in her talk with her students that she didn't play video games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

I'm not attacking her at all. I'm just saying she's one of the worst people to present an argument based on video games to which you haven't answered any of those concerns.

They do matter indeed. She has a background in marketing, not literary criticism. So her talking about tropes would fall under a discussion of Joseph Campbell. There's still the double standard of gender, the creationist method of research, the arguments that are ignored for more controversy...

The list goes on and on. So how about instead of throwing out words to dismiss the arguments, why not show why they're not true? The burden of proof that the gaming industry is sexist remains with Anita and she hasn't done it with the videos presented where she has plagiarized herself instead of presenting a valid argument with evidence and research to back it up objectively.

Not to dismiss the subject, because you had some fair points... but my brain more or less went out the window at that evil laugh. I'm afraid of a man who has developed their evil laugh to such perfection.

Was Jim quoting Jagi or am I reading too deep into the choice of game footage?

AuronFtw:

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.

Only, the ending to ME3 wasn't retconned, it just got an extended cut. It's still the three color ending with the tacked on addition of a short fourth. No one has admitted D3 was a pile of shit, ActiBlizzard just wanted to fine tune the auction system because of how it didn't work with the loot drop system. No one was fired over the SimCity launch, John Riccitello stepped down because for a very long time while he was in charge EA's stocks looked like this http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo56/UberPubert/ku-xlarge_zpsa0882a10.png, which you can see includes years before the Sim City release.

The one single point you have is the Xbox One and I'd even contest that it wasn't a result of internet rage but rather Sony's moves to disregard Microsoft's practices. That's what you do in a business, change your product to be more competitive.

tehpiemaker:

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.

Mistakes are not inherent to human nature, they're a byproduct of biological deficiencies. No human was ever admired for a mistake they made and I'd only like for people to be right more than wrong. I'm not talking about utopia or the pursuit of happiness I'm just talking basic critical thinking and problem solving skills, things we should have learned in schools but forget to use in our daily lives all too often. I think people can improve because history shows that's been the case, otherwise you and I would not be having this conversation, we'd be beating each other over the head with sticks.

I'm only tying to explain what I think, the short summary being "persuasion is a tool for getting people to do what you say", "you don't need to persuade someone in order for you to do it yourself" and "I don't need to convince you of anything during this conversation, I'm only making my intentions clear".

I mean that because not everyone uses logic, or is in a position to make logical decisions (lacking information, under duress, etc) that the world is still mostly a grey area without clear answers. Logic is about finding those answers, but like with any mathematical equation, you don't always have all the variables spelled out to you. That's why I don't immediately start an argument with statements, rather with questions, to hear the entirety of the matter.

There are things in life to get very mad about. Practically everything video game related is not one of them.

Deadagent:

erttheking:

If he starts his post off basically saying that Anita had the rape threats coming, then really I think I've heard enough of his argument.

Have you ever seen a mean looking big burly guy on a bus or train or whatever?
Next time you do, go up to them and say "fuck you and your mother".
Chances are your gonna get punched in the face. Did you deserve that?
Strictly speaking no, the guy should have held off, but dont think for a second you
dont have part of the blame for knowingly causing trouble.

So why is Anita a special case. Why does she get no blame for pissing off
a community infamous for vitrol for those who oppose them? It's because she has a vagina.

But even then I went back and read his post. It's the same justifications I've heard a million times by people who try to justify this massive hate towards Anita and I've heard a thousand times by now, and frankly they all just ring hollow to me.People always hated her from the minute she made herself known.

She was known before the kickstarter on /v/.
And justifying hate, you make it sound like people hate her because shes a woman,
wich isn't a suprising coming from someone such as yourself.

Frankly it just feels like they're looking for evidence to support a conclusion they've already reached.

The irony of this statement is laughable.
Also whatever you feel like has fuckall to do with reality.

If someone is going to open his post with a generalization like that, he really shouldn't directly contradict what he said later on.

Were getting into an irony combo here

If she "totally ended up deserving it" he shouldn't have to say "but no one deserves the rape threats" Like I said before, even if she ended up being in the wrong I still wouldn't be able to sympathize with the people who were against her because their reaction was so uncalled for and so overkill that frankly I don't even care if they ended up being right, their actions were still uncalled for.

I explained this already so read above

Bush and Obama were both presidents of the United States, directed were trillions of dollars in tax payers money went, made choices in wars that led to the death of thousands one way or another, and may have had direct hands in spying on US citizens. I think comparing those two to a woman who makes Youtube videos is a bit of false equivalence.

So a TL;DR version of this would be:

"Punching presidents in a video game: A-Okay

Punching women in video game: OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!"

No double standards here. Besides it's not just presidents, there are many punching games about hated public figures.
Oh and killing Randy Pitchford in cold blood over a video game is still apparently A-Okay.

I think we should be less concerned that Anita is someone who randomly walks up to people and says fuck you and your mother and I think we should be more concerned that apparently gamers are big scary men that punch people in the face with little to no provocation. If you honestly think that station describes us with us being the big asshole that shouldn't be provoked than I think we need to do some serious soul searching. Right right, because that woman who got on the Mass Effect sex scenes and called the Xbox the Sexbox completely got off because of her gender.

No, I was talking about the Tropes Vs Woman debacle, which is where she got mainstream attention and I'm talking about how people hated the videos before it even came out and dubbed them to be shit before they even saw them. Also, they're probably in the minority, but are you honestly going to tell me that no one hates her for exactly that reason? Also, would you care to explain exactly what that is supposed to mean?

Uh...how? And it's not how I "feel" I'm just pointing out that a lot of people reached their conclusion about the quality of Anita's videos before they even came out and haven't budged an inch since then.

Again, you're gonna have to explain what I'm doing that's wrong.

Likewise

Did Anita spy on millions of Americans and start a war that killed somewhere from 60,000 to a million people? No? Well then pardon me if that feels like false equivalence. And I never said that I approved of that, frankly it disgusts me, but at least the anger behind the people is for issues that actually warrant a massive backlash and their anger is understandable because, well, what Bush and Obama do is serious grade stuff.

Anita on the other hand...not really. And I never said that the mess with Randy Pitchford was ok, Christ, I said way back when on the Homeworld 2 remake thread that I really feel sorry for Gearbox because of all the crap they get for Colonial Marines and how people won't let it go. I never liked that story, but then again we're not talking about that story right now, so I didn't bring it up.

UberPubert:

Mistakes are not inherent to human nature, they're a byproduct of biological deficiencies. No human was ever admired for a mistake they made and I'd only like for people to be right more than wrong.

Christopher Columbus got lost trying to find a shorter way to Asia and instead found America

The discovery of penicillin was also the byproduct of a mistake, a researcher left a culture uncovered was contaminated by mould.

I also wonder how many successes are based on the mistakes or failures of that researcher before, for nobody I know gets everything right on the first try.

Wow, Jim has quite an excellent maniacal cackle.

Moth_Monk:
This is bollocks Jim. You refer to "us", "we", the so-called "gaming community" etc. as if you're appealing to some singular collective. What you're actually doing is shouting into a cave. There isn't this "us" really. There's just individuals that buy, play and talk about video games.

Moviebob does this kind of thing too: Lengthy seminars about what the ideals of "the gaming community" ought to be. I have to raise an eyebrow when the rhetoric gets this political. It's like there's this idea that the gaming community is a political movement or something.

The only people who your soapboxing will affect are the people that talk about video games professionally, video gaming journos (and bloggers who wish they were journos), who will go on to echo this stuff. Everyone else in your viewership i.e. average joes that play video games from time to time will give you a pat on the head for letting us here a good rant but that's about it.

You should know by now that no amount of soapboxing is going to stop the occasional few, individual haters from hating and the /v/ trolls from trolling. They're going to do what they want.

Edit: On the thing about "mekkin us luk bahd" - you do realise that the "non-gaming community" [whatever the hell that is] does not give a damn about "us"?

TL;DR: Stop taking fun so seriously, ffs.

So... what you are saying is that Jim is not talking about you, yet you still found a way to make it about you?
Am I the only one who senses a disconnect here?

Sanunes:

Christopher Columbus got lost trying to find a shorter way to Asia and instead found America

The discovery of penicillin was also the byproduct of a mistake, a researcher left a culture uncovered was contaminated by mould.

I also wonder how many successes are based on the mistakes or failures of that researcher before, for nobody I know gets everything right on the first try.

But Christopher Columbus didn't discover America, it was already inhabited. And he wasn't even the first European to find it, Leif Ericcson had him beat and it wasn't by mistake, he was following in his father's footsteps from Greenland. Besides that, by using the standard of "finding a shorter way to Asia", he failed. The Spanish didn't celebrate Colombus's findings because he made a mistake, they celebrated the fact that he found something else.

The discovery of penicillin wasn't a mistake, leaving the dish out was a mistake. Alexander Fleming wasn't praised because he accidentally left the cover off a petri dish, it was because of the discovery he made afterwards.

Successes aren't based on the mistakes or failures of those that came before, they're based upon the successes. You cannot build anything based on faulty information. Mistakes can be learned from and when possible avoided in order to find a better outcome but they're not anything to base actions on. No one tries something for the sole reason that someone else failed at it.

UberPubert:
This is just awful.

"Venom" is not a substitute for rational discourse, anger is not a proper alternative to logic and no amount of internet nerd rage is going to change the mind of someone who sees it for what it is: Impotent whining from someone who lacks the power to change things in the real world and has to take it to the internet, where they can hide behind an anonymous username and block dissenting opinions and comments, handwaving away legitimate complaints as virtual harassment.

Thank goodness someone said this.
I really wish that the vocal gaming public would adopt more rational reasoning, but given the growing rift in trust between customer and publisher (with most developers being unfortunate pawns, though they aren't entirely innocent), the response of increasing irrational anger is not only expected, but unfortunately seems increasingly effective in getting what you want.

ON TOPIC, MORE GENERALLY
Why respond with irrational toxicity?
Because it seems that companies are more likely to acknowledge irrational outrage than rational dissent.

Compare:
-Whiny gits with their false sense of entitlement got EA/Bioware's attention over ME3.
I'll be brutally honest: The outrage over the ME3 ending ultimately amounted to nothing more than disappointment and buyer's remorse. Which, while understandable, was still based on largely arbitrary expectations.

-Those who were debunked Blizzard's (and later, EA's) justification of Always Online for games that weren't and didn't need to be Always Online went completely ignored. Even though these changes fundamentally altered the design and availability of the games in question objectively for the worse.

They listened to the virtual temper tantrum, but not the well-reasoned arguments.

Which isn't to say that the two camps don't overlap; I saw plenty of irrational hatred and blind stupidity over the pre-180 Xbone arguing right alongside perfectly objective criticisms.

Still, why?

Mob Mentality? Anger does seem to spread faster than reason as anyone who has seen or been in a riot knows.
But why foster this mentality by selectively responding to it?

I dunno.

"Embrace your anger"? You sound like a Sith lord.

I will play Devil's Advocate here for a tiny bit: Logic without motivation is just as useless as impotent whining.
One can only detach themselves so much from the subject before losing interest, and thus their purpose in arguing in the first place.

In the greater scheme, Jaded gamers may contribute less and complain a lot, but they still care enough to complain (no matter how much we may overtly hate it). Someone who has become so disenfranchised as to be actually indifferent to subjects is likely to just leave the market entirely when confronted with a change for the worse.

That said, logic should be the means of getting our motivations realized; not blind anger.
Sadly, that isn't what is happening. Reason is being ignored, while sensationalist nonsense is what gets any attention.

UberPubert:
Mistakes are not inherent to human nature, they're a byproduct of biological deficiencies. No human was ever admired for a mistake they made and I'd only like for people to be right more than wrong. I'm not talking about utopia or the pursuit of happiness I'm just talking basic critical thinking and problem solving skills, things we should have learned in schools but forget to use in our daily lives all too often. I think people can improve because history shows that's been the case, otherwise you and I would not be having this conversation, we'd be beating each other over the head with sticks.

I'm only tying to explain what I think, the short summary being "persuasion is a tool for getting people to do what you say", "you don't need to persuade someone in order for you to do it yourself" and "I don't need to convince you of anything during this conversation, I'm only making my intentions clear".

I mean that because not everyone uses logic, or is in a position to make logical decisions (lacking information, under duress, etc) that the world is still mostly a grey area without clear answers. Logic is about finding those answers, but like with any mathematical equation, you don't always have all the variables spelled out to you. That's why I don't immediately start an argument with statements, rather with questions, to hear the entirety of the matter.

Jesus Christ, you're just a little ray of sunshine, aren't you? Let's look at this in a story format. When you're writing a character it's important to give him or her flaws. It makes for better story telling. These flaws aren't openly admired, but without them it would be hard to relate to any character. A character that is virtually perfect is called a Mary Sue. I personally detest Mary Sue's because they've got no character developement, no likeable personality, and are absolutely not interesting in the least. So tell me, what is the point of what you're saying if you have no endgame? You're telling me I'm misunderstanding you, but you're just not being clear. Why don't you just tell me what you want?What is the point of believing what you say if it doesn't bring people happiness or a utopia? Is there any reason? Yes, technology improves and so does education, but motives have not changed in the slightest. Weapons have changed from sticks to guns but they're still weapons and that never changes. Humans have change in semantics but they never "really" change.

But what is the point of what you're saying? I remember you say that already told me you're point, but you didn't. You're not being clear. You're all over the place! The argument is spread thin like butter over dry toast. You don't tell me what you hope this philosophy brings about, or how you hope to meet it using this code of yours! Now the argument is all about motive because so far you've failed to make yours clear! So, tell me what the point is. What do you hope to gain through this particular bit of conversation? You're intentions are unclear. You don't even know what the word means going off of how you're using it.

Listen, you're not using these terms correctly. When you use something like "grey" or "black and white" you're using them from your perspective. So, for example, if I say something, "The world is black and white," I really mean to say that the answers are clear. If I say something like, "The world is grey," I believe that there is no right or wrong.

In summary, you're a pussy-footer. You fail to realize even what you want and when you do you don't even have the courage to make leaps of faith when that's the only option you've been left with. If the world seldom gives all the information needed to make the best decision then it takes courageous people to do with what they have. I takes passion to realize what you want and courage to do anything. Instead you try to somehow make everybody happy by spreading your net to be more inclusive. But you're net is thin and easy to break. You never had a chance, son.

Atmos Duality:

I will play Devil's Advocate here for a tiny bit: Logic without motivation is just as useless as impotent whining.
One can only detach themselves so much from the subject before losing interest, and thus their purpose in arguing in the first place.

In the greater scheme, Jaded gamers may contribute less and complain a lot, but they still care enough to complain (no matter how much we may overtly hate it). Someone who has become so disenfranchised as to be actually indifferent to subjects is likely to just leave the market entirely when confronted with a change for the worse.

I actually made this argument earlier when I said that even a good scientist who uses empirical evidence is motivated by a love of discovery or hope for the future. I even recognize how this plays out on a smaller scale, for if I didn't care about videogames I wouldn't be on this forum and I certainly wouldn't be watching Jim's show, and I even care about the broader issues surrounding videogames or I'd just be playing videogames right now.

I think the difference is being able to remove one's self from the equation and not see bad decisions made by publishers (or anyone else for that matter) as personal offenses and that they might have good reasons for them, even if I don't benefit from them.

tehpiemaker:

Jesus Christ, you're just a little ray of sunshine, aren't you? Let's look at this in a story format. When you're writing a character it's important to give him or her flaws. It makes for better story telling. These flaws aren't openly admired, but without them it would be hard to relate to any character. A character that is virtually perfect is called a Mary Sue. I personally detest Mary Sue's because they've got no character developement, no likeable personality, and are absolutely not interesting in the least. So tell me, what is the point of what you're saying if you have no endgame? You're telling me I'm misunderstanding you, but you're just not being clear. Why don't you just tell me what you want?What is the point of believing what you say if it doesn't bring people happiness or a utopia? Is there any reason? Yes, technology improves and so does education, but motives have not changed in the slightest. Weapons have changed from sticks to guns but they're still weapons and that never changes. Humans have change in semantics but they never "really" change.

But what is the point of what you're saying? I remember you say that already told me you're point, but you didn't. You're not being clear. You're all over the place! The argument is spread thin like butter over dry toast. You don't tell me what you hope this philosophy brings about, or how you hope to meet it using this code of yours! Now the argument is all about motive because so far you've failed to make yours clear! So, tell me what the point is. What do you hope to gain through this particular bit of conversation? You're intentions are unclear. You don't even know what the word means going off of how you're using it.

Listen, you're not using these terms correctly. When you use something like "grey" or "black and white" you're using them from your perspective. So, for example, if I say something, "The world is black and white," I really mean to say that the answers are clear. If I say something like, "The world is grey," I believe that there is no right or wrong.

In summary, you're a pussy-footer. You fail to realize even what you want and when you do you don't even have the courage to make leaps of faith when that's the only option you've been left with. If the world seldom gives all the information needed to make the best decision then it takes courageous people to do with what they have. I takes passion to realize what you want and courage to do anything. Instead you try to somehow make everybody happy by spreading your net to be more inclusive. But you're net is thin and easy to break. You never had a chance, son.

I'm not sure I understand your tangent on character development. I'm talking about people improving their thought processes, not on becoming well rounded fictional characters. People do have flaws, yes, some of those flaws even make them more interesting people, but when they can, people should strive to be better than they are. While people haven't changed much (we just don't evolve that fast) I think we can still learn and aim higher than those who came before us, and I think being reasonable people is a part of that.

The point of what I'm saying is just to tell you what I think, because you keep asking. No more, no less. I'm not trying to persuade you into doing something, I don't even expect you to learn anything, I'm just answering questions so as to not appear rude.

I'm actually not using those terms from my perspective because I recognize my perspective is not the only one that matters. I can say logic paints the world in black and white and say that someone else sees it as grey. Those aren't conflicting statements unless you start making assumptions about who that person is or what logic means. I am not, and am saying that because the two exist that the world can be seen in both ways, or more if you use other philosophies.

Well now, personal insults will get you nowhere with me. Yes, not all decisions can be logical because not all the variables are there, that doesn't mean the variables are never there or that when they're missing I won't ever act, it just means I'd prefer to use logic when I can, especially when the matter isn't terribly urgent or important. Take this very topic, for example: We're talking almost exclusively about people arguing at each other over the internet about videogames. It doesn't take "courage" to ignore facts and get angry in a virtual forum, that just sounds silly. It takes far more courage - I'd say - to ignore the majority opinion, even the one that the topic is based on, and pursue another avenue of thought.

UberPubert:

I actually made this argument earlier...

Forgive me for not wanting to dig through the comments of a Jim Sterling video, but I believe you.
I've grown averse to reading those for my own reasons. Hopefully obvious reasons.

I think the difference is being able to remove one's self from the equation and not see bad decisions made by publishers (or anyone else for that matter) as personal offenses and that they might have good reasons for them, even if I don't benefit from them.

Personally, I do try to remove myself from the equation, looking for solutions, compromises, and limits with what I know.
(and obviously, trying not to offer anything conclusive without knowing the whole "equation". Ironically, in my line of work, I'm often forced to make due with educated guesses while looking for more accurate methods to getting solutions)

However, I also realize that there are times where "personal offense" is perfectly rational, like when a company blatantly lies to its customers for their gain. Dishonesty may serve them in ways I can understand, but it does nothing but reduce my motivation to do business with them.

Conversely, I don't try to assume that every single thing they do is inherently dishonest. It doesn't benefit them in the long run to alienate their customers with routine dishonesty. They have to offer some honest consistency or devalue what it is they're doing in the first place.

So in that way, I see the growing "gamer community toxicity" more broadly as a loss of trust between gamers and companies.
Namely from people who are so used to seeing dishonesty from these companies that they're assuming it by default.

Atmos Duality:
So in that way, I see the growing "gamer community toxicity" more broadly as a loss of trust between gamers and companies.
Namely from people who are so used to seeing dishonesty from these companies that they're assuming it by default.

I think the problem is even broader than that in the way we see toxicity pop up on regular forums and towards people that aren't related to the industry. This is because I don't think this is a gamer-specific problem, but is more a people/society problem, and that more people could be helped by trying to be calm and critically thinking rather than angry, gamers included.

UberPubert:

I think the problem is even broader than that in the way we see toxicity pop up on regular forums and towards people that aren't related to the industry. This is because I don't think this is a gamer-specific problem, but is more a people/society problem, and that more people could be helped by trying to be calm and critically thinking rather than angry, gamers included.

You could expand it to that if you wish; it has precedence given the reliance some people place in sensationalist mass media and the news for information for example. I'm was just trying to keep to the scope of the topic in gaming.

UberPubert:
I'm not sure I understand your tangent on character development. I'm talking about people improving their thought processes, not on becoming well rounded fictional characters. People do have flaws, yes, some of those flaws even make them more interesting people, but when they can, people should strive to be better than they are. While people haven't changed much (we just don't evolve that fast) I think we can still learn and aim higher than those who came before us, and I think being reasonable people is a part of that.

The point of what I'm saying is just to tell you what I think, because you keep asking. No more, no less. I'm not trying to persuade you into doing something, I don't even expect you to learn anything, I'm just answering questions so as to not appear rude.

I'm actually not using those terms from my perspective because I recognize my perspective is not the only one that matters. I can say logic paints the world in black and white and say that someone else sees it as grey. Those aren't conflicting statements unless you start making assumptions about who that person is or what logic means. I am not, and am saying that because the two exist that the world can be seen in both ways, or more if you use other philosophies.

Well now, personal insults will get you nowhere with me. Yes, not all decisions can be logical because not all the variables are there, that doesn't mean the variables are never there or that when they're missing I won't ever act, it just means I'd prefer to use logic when I can, especially when the matter isn't terribly urgent or important. Take this very topic, for example: We're talking almost exclusively about people arguing at each other over the internet about videogames. It doesn't take "courage" to ignore facts and get angry in a virtual forum, that just sounds silly. It takes far more courage - I'd say - to ignore the majority opinion, even the one that the topic is based on, and pursue another avenue of thought.

It's not an insult if it's the truth. I'm just telling how it is. You're too scared to make any decisions that may have an outcome you can't predict. It's pussy-footing is what it is. Sure, people who use passion to motivate themselves make mistakes, but I can speak from experience that it at least feels fulfilling. I'm not just talking about video games here either-- I'm talking about life now. People like you are too scared to step barefoot in the grass, despite how wonderful it feels: always wearing soles on your feet and calluses around your heart.

How has humanity improved since the last thousands of years? Besides technology and education people have not changed in their needs or desires. You have yet to prove differently. How can people strive to be better than they are when the chains holding them back are metaphorical?

You still have not given me any "real" motivation. Because you don't want to be rude? You clearly don't like me. Sorry, but most people don't feel the need to be polite to people they dislike. Your reasons are hollow. Or if all your worried about is appearances then you have even less reason to do what you do.

When you use a term such as "grey" you do so from your perspective whether you know so or not. Trying to do otherwise is confusing for the reader. Besides, that was not the excuse you gave last time to justify your writing.

tehpiemaker:

It's not an insult if it's the truth. I'm just telling how it is. You're too scared to make any decisions that may have an outcome you can't predict. It's pussy-footing is what it is. Sure, people who use passion to motivate themselves make mistakes, but I can speak from experience that it at least feels fulfilling. I'm not just talking about video games here either-- I'm talking about life now. People like you are too scared to step barefoot in the grass, despite how wonderful it feels: always wearing soles on your feet and calluses around your heart.

How has humanity improved since the last thousands of years? Besides technology and education people have not changed in their needs or desires. You have yet to prove differently. How can people strive to be better than they are when the chains holding them back are metaphorical?

You still have not given me any "real" motivation. Because you don't want to be rude? You clearly don't like me. Sorry, but most people don't feel the need to be polite to people they dislike. Your reasons are hollow. Or if all your worried about is appearances then you have even less reason to do what you do.

When you use a term such as "grey" you do so from your perspective whether you know so or not. Trying to do otherwise is confusing for the reader. Besides, that was not the excuse you gave last time to justify your writing.

You have a strange fixation on feet. I'm not afraid of anything, there's just some things I'd rather not do. If I have to continue with your metaphor, it's not the grass I'm adverse to, it's the snakes hiding in it I'd like to avoid. Just because I'd prefer we be logical about things doesn't mean we should exclude all else, we should just be wary of the mistakes that come with it.

I'm not sure what you're asking, do I think human biology has changed? No, but that was never my point. Logic is itself a product of education and academic thought, and technology a result of that, and both of those things are the only reason humanity has advanced at all. Otherwise we'd go back to the barbarian thing.

What do you mean, "clearly don't like" you? I disagree with you, I don't think that makes you a bad person. And I am one of those people that believes in being polite even to people I dislike, but I don't even dislike you, not really.

You keep implying things about the way I feel and about my perspective, and you keep getting it wrong. Again, I'm not really arguing that any one view is the best, not even my own, I'm saying there are different ones and they color the world in many different ways, and just because I'd rather we use logic doesn't mean anger or irrationality doesn't exist.

That laughing will echo throughout the ages.

erttheking:

I think we should be less concerned that Anita is someone who randomly walks up to people and says fuck you and your mother and I think we should be more concerned that apparently gamers are big scary men that punch people in the face with little to no provocation.

Intentionally provoking for profit. Yeah, nothing dishonest here.

If you honestly think that station describes us with us being the big asshole that shouldn't be provoked than I think we need to do some serious soul searching.

It represents a certain vocal minority. And that big guy isnt neccearily an asshole either, it's rather sensitive against insluts is all, but the fact that you are so ready to label people as assholes tellm me that you seriously have problems with taking other perspectives into consideration.

Right right, because that woman who got on the Mass Effect sex scenes and called the Xbox the Sexbox completely got off because of her gender. No, I was talking about the Tropes Vs Woman debacle, which is where she got mainstream attention and I'm talking about how people hated the videos before it even came out and dubbed them to be shit before they even saw them.

She had been making videos before the Tropes Vs Women kickstarter, the people who were against her, had seen her previous videos (the one about Bayonetta is very telling how much she knows about anything). Furthermore, she had given her general opinion in the kickstarter video. It was going to be negative and well, since this sort of feminism has been around forever its not to go to TvTropes or Wikipedia and look up what tropes shes going to be talking about and have a educated guess as to what she will have a problem with.

Also, they're probably in the minority, but are you honestly going to tell me that no one hates her for exactly that reason? Also, would you care to explain exactly what that is supposed to mean?

It seems as if you are trying to say that there aren't any
legimate reasons to take issue not only what she is saying, but her as a person.
As if only reason anyone hates her is because she is a woman.

Uh...how? And it's now how I "feel" I'm just pointing out that a lot of people reached their conclusion about the quality of Anita's videos before they even came out and haven't budged an inch since then.

Mostly because their predictions came true, she didnt use her own footage,
her video quality didn't improve.
And her "research" is almost verbatim from Wikipedia and TvTropes.org

And all this for the low low price of $160k

Again, you're gonna have to explain what I'm doing that's wrong.

You havent done anything wrong as far as I can tell. I just dont agree with you

Did Anita spy on millions of Americans and start a war that killed somewhere from 60,000 to a million people? No? Well then pardon me if that feels like false equivalence. And I never said that I approved of that, frankly it disgusts me, but at least the anger behind the people is for issues that actually warrant a massive backlash and their anger is understandable because, well, what Bush and Obama do is serious grade stuff.

Anita on the other hand...not really.

Well, the Backstreet boys didnt really do anything as harmful as start a war, but here they are

Either it's okay to make a game about beating anyone, or it isn't.

And I never said that the mess with Randy Pitchford was ok, Christ, I said way back when on the Homeworld 2 remake thread that I really feel sorry for Gearbox because of all the crap they get for Colonial Marines and how people won't let it go. I never liked that story, but then again we're not talking about that story right now, so I didn't bring it up.

Im bringing the story up because it's utterly hypocritical to cry about death and rape threats,
while endorsing a story about yourself killing someone.

UberPubert:
You have a strange fixation on feet. I'm not afraid of anything, there's just some things I'd rather not do. If I have to continue with your metaphor, it's not the grass I'm adverse to, it's the snakes hiding in it I'd like to avoid. Just because I'd prefer we be logical about things doesn't mean we should exclude all else, we should just be wary of the mistakes that come with it.

I'm not sure what you're asking, do I think human biology has changed? No, but that was never my point. Logic is itself a product of education and academic thought, and technology a result of that, and both of those things are the only reason humanity has advanced at all. Otherwise we'd go back to the barbarian thing.

What do you mean, "clearly don't like" you? I disagree with you, I don't think that makes you a bad person. And I am one of those people that believe in being polite even to people I dislike, but I don't even dislike you, not really.

You keep implying things about the way I feel and about my perspective, and you keep getting it wrong. Again, I'm not really arguing that any one view is the best, not even my own, I'm saying there are different ones and they color the world in many different ways, and just because I'd rather we use logic doesn't mean anger or irrationality doesn't exist.

Wow, dude you just agreed with me. I was implying that you were afraid of the things you couldn't see, such as snakes and shards of glass, and you just confirmed it. So yeah, why not just tell me I'm right?

Well, people have changed biologically over the years. For example, people have grown taller over the centuries and you can tell by visiting old forts. You have to crouch in order to look through the windows that used to be eye level. The buildings never changed, people have. I'm not arguing about physical changes. I'm arguing that human nature never changes. People create new tools that fulfill the same purpose that the old tools did.

Meanwhile, you keep saying that I'm "misunderstand" you but you never tell me WHAT I'm getting wrong and never use anything to disprove me. It's almost as if you assume I'll take what your saying on faith. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. if I get something wrong you exploit it. That's is how you win arguments. Now you're trying to say that no view is better than any other, but in you're original post you said that you believe that people shouldn't let emotions dictate actions, which is a view! So which is it?!

Sorry, but I don't share your sentiment. Maybe I would be polite if I respected you but I find it hard to do even that. You're hypocritical, your reasoning is hollow, and even when you argue you seem to agree with me. To me those are the symptoms of a person scared. A timid person that doesn't even realize what he is. How can you claim to know anything when you don't know yourself?

tehpiemaker:

Wow, dude you just agreed with me. I was implying that you were afraid of the things you couldn't see, such as snakes and shards of glass, and you just confirmed it. So yeah, why not just tell me I'm right?

Well, people have changed biologically over the years. For example, people have grown taller over the centuries and you can tell by visiting old forts. You have to crouch in order to look through the windows that used to be eye level. The buildings never changed, people have. I'm not arguing about physical changes. I'm arguing that human nature never changes. People create new tools that fulfill the same purpose that the old tools did.

Meanwhile, you keep saying that I'm "misunderstand" you but you never tell me WHAT I'm getting wrong and never use anything to disprove me. It's almost as if you assume I'll take what your saying on faith. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. if I get something wrong you exploit it. That's is how you win arguments. Now you're trying to say that no view is better than any other, but in you're original post you said that you believe that people shouldn't let emotions dictate actions, which is a view! So which is it?!

Sorry, but I don't share your sentiment. Maybe I would be polite if I respected you but I find it hard to do even that. You're hypocritical, your reasoning is hollow, and even when you argue you seem to agree with me. To me those are the symptoms of a person scared. A timid person that doesn't even realize what he is. How can you claim to know anything when you don't know yourself?

Actually you didn't say anything about things I couldn't see, such as snakes and shards of glass, you were talking about being barefoot and having heart callouses. And again, I'm not afraid of snakes or shards of glass, but I know that they can hurt and would rather avoid them. Just because someone doesn't want to do something wrong doesn't mean they're too scared to do it, sometimes it just means they don't want to do something wrong.

And actually, we have good reason to believe humans growing taller isn't a result of evolution, but rather more proper nutrition and other advances in child care (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller). Of course, I'm not arguing about physical changes either and never was, I do argue against your definition of human nature but only in that you think it can't at all be changed or treated over a persons's lifetime. And of course it can - the very act of learning is proof of this. It is not in our nature to pick up a pen and write, we do not know laws as instinct, the only thing that is in our "nature" is to eat, sleep, and procreate (as in, survive), everything else is a change in our nature, and obviously we've come a long way. Infants start back at square one, of course, but everything else is learned.

What do you mean I'm not telling you what you're getting wrong? I keep saying you're making assumptions about what I think or how I feel and I keep telling you you're wrong about them. I don't have to prove what you've said about me is wrong, you would have to prove that what you said is right for me to even disprove it. What's more to be said than that? And I never said no view is better than any other, I said logic isn't the best, and it's because of the same reasons I noted earlier, being that the variables required to make a logical decision aren't always apparent.

More oddly inaccurate personal insults... Oh boy. I'm not hypocritical, you're just drawing very strange conclusions from what I've said in such a way that they seem opposed, but they do not. My reasoning is the opposite of hollow, I've said little to nothing that wasn't at some point rooted in simple observable fact, though I could address your complaints point by point if you'd make them. Once again I'm not scared or timid of anything, if anything I prefer the terms careful, vigilant, alert, attentive, wary, etc. I don't live in fear of things happening to me, I just prefer to avoid unnecessary risks, which includes the risk of letting my emotions get the better of my judgement.

Jim Sterling - the Charlie Chaplin of Video Game conferences. Such a persona he's created for himself, so well-fitted. Also, helps that his show is awesome - loved that performance at the end, mate, really good job - you're a brilliant performer, Mr Sterling.

That was probably the best ending I've seen on jimquisition so far

UberPubert:
Actually you didn't say anything about things I couldn't see, such as snakes and shards of glass, you were talking about being barefoot and having heart callouses. And again, I'm not afraid of snakes or shards of glass, but I know that they can hurt and would rather avoid them. Just because someone doesn't want to do something wrong doesn't mean they're too scared to do it, sometimes it just means they don't want to do something wrong.

*face palm* Have you ever taken a literature course in your life? You have to read into the metaphor! What are the connotations of calluses?! Calluses are that rough bit of skin that forms when you bench press or pluck on strings. It, like shoes, are for protection. So when I say you that "you are too scared to step barefoot in the grass, despite how wonderful it feels." I am saying that you're too afraid of getting hurt by metaphorical snakes to let yourself feel something pleasant. Metaphors and allegories! Hearts can't literally form calluses, so you have to think differently! I'm implying that you're too afraid of emotions, which is represented by a hardened heart. Sorry, but I think you're just blatantly ignorant.

UberPubert:
And actually, we have good reason to believe humans growing taller isn't a result of evolution, but rather more proper nutrition and other advances in child care (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller). Of course, I'm not arguing about physical changes either and never was, I do argue against your definition of human nature but only in that you think it can't at all be changed or treated over a persons's lifetime. And of course it can - the very act of learning is proof of this. It is not in our nature to pick up a pen and write, we do not know laws as instinct, the only thing that is in our "nature" is to eat, sleep, and procreate (as in, survive), everything else is a change in our nature, and obviously we've come a long way. Infants start back at square one, of course, but everything else is learned.

Yeah, I looked at your source. You have an unhealthy habit of nitpicking only what agrees with you but also leaving out everything that doesn't. Nutrition may be the reason why we're growing taller, but what does that mean in evolutionary terms? Evolution is the adaptation of a being to suit the environment. There are a lot of different reasons why a species or gender changes it's height. One reason might be because on a subconscious level we connotate "tall" with "healthy" and people actively want the healthiest children possible so we choose tall mates.

UberPubert:
What do you mean I'm not telling you what you're getting wrong? I keep saying you're making assumptions about what I think or how I feel and I keep telling you you're wrong about them. I don't have to prove what you've said about me is wrong, you would have to prove that what you said is right for me to even disprove it. What's more to be said than that? And I never said no view is better than any other, I said logic isn't the best, and it's because of the same reasons I noted earlier, being that the variables required to make a logical decision aren't always apparent.

"You mean I have to give PROOF in an argument?!" That's what you sound like right now. Telling me I am wrong is not the same as proving that I am wrong. You know what else? It's hypocritical that a person who says they care so much about information would give so little. Also, you clearly said in an early post that, "[You] prefer logic," and in order to say that you have to give some amount of justification, which you never did!

UberPubert:
More oddly inaccurate personal insults... Oh boy. I'm not hypocritical, you're just drawing very strange conclusions from what I've said in such a way that they seem opposed, but they do not. My reasoning is the opposite of hollow, I've said little to nothing that wasn't at some point rooted in simple observable fact, though I could address your complaints point by point if you'd make them. Once again I'm not scared or timid of anything, if anything I prefer the terms careful, vigilant, alert, attentive, wary, etc. I don't live in fear of things happening to me, I just prefer to avoid unnecessary risks, which includes the risk of letting my emotions get the better of my judgement.

Am I in a tunnel? Because I swear to god there's an echo in here. You simply haven't given any motive, proof, or reason that doesn't end up eating on itself. You give no quotes. You give no real hypothetical situations that aren't lifeboat representations. (Oh, and by the way I mean that metaphorically.) You're the perfect representation of a person who only sees what they want to see. You're blinding yourself willingly.

tehpiemaker:

*face palm* Have you ever taken a literature course in your life? You have to read into the metaphor! What are the connotations of calluses?! Calluses are that rough bit of skin that forms when you bench press or pluck on strings. It, like shoes, are for protection. So when I say you that "you are too scared to step barefoot in the grass, despite how wonderful it feels." I am saying that you're too afraid of getting hurt by metaphorical snakes to let yourself feel something pleasant. Metaphors and allegories! Hearts can't literally form calluses, so you have to think differently! I'm implying that you're too afraid of emotions, which is represented by a hardened heart. Sorry, but I think you're just blatantly ignorant.

I understand the metaphor but it's still wrong in this situation. Just because I don't want to do something doesn't mean I fear it. Sometimes it's because it's wrong, sometimes it's a matter of self-control, neither of which have anything to do with not wanting to feel emotion. You've mistaken my statement that we should not give ourselves over to emotion as we should exclude it completely. I've only ever argued for not using emotion in science and arguments, because neither of the two are made more credible by emotions.

tehpiemaker:

Yeah, I looked at your source. You have an unhealthy habit of nitpicking only what agrees with you but also leaving out everything that doesn't. Nutrition may be the reason why we're growing taller, but what does that mean in evolutionary terms? Evolution is the adaptation of a being to suit the environment. There are a lot of different reasons why a species or gender changes it's height. One reason might be because on a subconscious level we connotate "tall" with "healthy" and people actively want the healthiest children possible so we choose tall mates.

Unhealthy habit of nitpicking? This is the first time I've cited a source during this conversation, and I didn't choose it because it agreed with me, I chose it because it looked like a legitimate scientific source. Also, your argument for getting tall being evolutionary is flawed. Our society, now more than ever, doesn't really need tall people as much for things like manual labor. We're an information-based society, and we've been heading in this direction since the industrial age as tasks kept becoming less laborious, and the strongest/tallest mates are not always the most successful, so shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker? And if you're implying that we choose tall people because they are healthier, and the article suggests that people are taller because they are healthier, doesn't that mean you essentially agree with it?

tehpiemaker:

"You mean I have to give PROOF in an argument?!" That's what you sound like right now. Telling me I am wrong is not the same as proving that I am wrong. You know what else? It's hypocritical that a person who says they care so much about information would give so little. Also, you clearly said in an early post that, "[You] prefer logic," and in order to say that you have to give some amount of justification, which you never did!

I'm telling you you're wrong in telling me what I think, if you'd like for me to educate you on the benefits of logic, that's another matter entirely. But the gist of philosophical logic as a debate tool is that it's a common ground people can all agree on, like math, because it just makes sense. The ultimate goal of philosophical logic is to put into human language what is universal truth in the laws of reality, almost like a cheat code to cut out bias, fallacies and pathos that clutter so many other debates. I like it because it's the most efficient method, but like I keep saying, it relies on known facts, and without those facts it ceases to function, which is why the most important part in any logical debate is listening and learning.

tehpiemaker:

Am I in a tunnel? Because I swear to god there's an echo in here. You simply haven't given any motive, proof, or reason that doesn't end up eating on itself. You give no quotes. You give no real hypothetical situations that aren't lifeboat representations. (Oh, and by the way I mean that metaphorically.) You're the perfect representation of a person who only sees what they want to see. You're blinding yourself willingly.

Motive, proof or reason for what? Believing what I believe? I don't have any factual evidence to prove to you I believe in logic, it is a decision made entirely in my head, and I can really only give you my word on it. I can sing logic's praises, use it in an argument to deconstruct an opponents proposition or even use it to solve an equation, but if you're calling me a liar there's not much I can do to convince you now can I?

Goliath100:

This is what I hate with Sarkeesian; her supporters (or the defence of her). Rosa Parks, really? How long have Sarkeesian been in jail? Where do the comparison become more than superficial? Nowhere, that's where. Rosa Parks is only mentioned in a desperate attempt to borrow sympathy. Every argument defending Sarkeesian is about sympathy, like it's a valid argument in itself. Every support relies only on sympathy.

Well, that is not strictly true. I have seen people defend her points, but they also criticized her weak film making.

You know, it's ironic, it was someone against Sarkeesian who compared her to Rosa Parks. I simply flipped the analogy because it works better this way. But then, nobody said she was the equivalent of Rosa Parks, only that her situation in a movement was similar in a specific sense. If you're going to "hate" something, perhaps the irrationality that led you to make this post.

The point remains, but you really didn't want to address it.

That's fine, but don't try and project onto me.

Well I think its kind of sad when an entire server decides to voteban you PERMA out of rage for pocket healing a sniper.

TF2 Reference.

UberPubert:
I understand the metaphor but it's still wrong in this situation. Just because I don't want to do something doesn't mean I fear it. Sometimes it's because it's wrong, sometimes it's a matter of self-control, neither of which have anything to do with not wanting to feel emotion. You've mistaken my statement that we should not give ourselves over to emotion as we should exclude it completely. I've only ever argued for not using emotion in science and arguments, because neither of the two are made more credible by emotions.

Semantics, that's all you're arguing my illiterate friend. Semantics. Danger can be anything: snakes, pain, death, losing money, or find yourself in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe you don't fear them like a phobia, but you do avoid them. Again, when I imply something I do something in the assumption that the person I'm writing to is smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. Forgive me because I was obviously wrong.

UberPubert:
Unhealthy habit of nitpicking? This is the first time I've cited a source during this conversation, and I didn't choose it because it agreed with me, I chose it because it looked like a legitimate scientific source. Also, your argument for getting tall being evolutionary is flawed. Our society, now more than ever, doesn't really need tall people as much for things like manual labor. We're an information-based society, and we've been heading in this direction since the industrial age as tasks kept becoming less laborious, and the strongest/tallest mates are not always the most successful, so shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker? And if you're implying that we choose tall people because they are healthier, and the article suggests that people are taller because they are healthier, doesn't that mean you essentially agree with it?

I'm including your source cited but not excluding other examples. I never said that being tall was necessary, but I did say that we can evolve in ways that aren't necessary. Evolution isn't merely about survival. Technology evolves even though we did find with what we had. Also, tall is not in itself desirable, but what it symbolizes is. Purple used to a symbol of wealth because of how expensive the die was. So where purple clothing could get a lot of attention. Today's equivalent would be people with abs and chiseled bodies. It's actually very expensive and time consuming to get that type of body so normally only wealthy people have them.

UberPubert:
I'm telling you you're wrong in telling me what I think, if you'd like for me to educate you on the benefits of logic, that's another matter entirely. But the gist of philosophical logic as a debate tool is that it's a common ground people can all agree on, like math, because it just makes sense. The ultimate goal of philosophical logic is to put into human language what is universal truth in the laws of reality, almost like a cheat code to cut out bias, fallacies and pathos that clutter so many other debates. I like it because it's the most efficient method, but like I keep saying, it relies on known facts, and without those facts it ceases to function, which is why the most important part in any logical debate is listening and learning.

Who's the presumptuous one now! "...if you'd like for me to educate you..." Do you know what a hypocrite is? A hypocrite is you. Look at all you're previous quotes and see how all over the place you are. You never agree with anything; not even yourself! You used to say Logic should be the best way to conduct yourself. Now you say no philosophy is better than any other. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even know? You never answer questions because you have no answers. You act like you know everything! But Logic is different given any situation and all this I was trying to get you to admit that you just don't have the answer! You loop around and around because being right is more important to you than anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but wise man knows himself to be a fool." --William motherfuckin' Shakespeare

You're entire philosophy hinges on it being possible for it to know absolutely everything. But you can't. That's the truth you can't admit to. No one will ever, ever know all the facts. Logic is consequential! Itself is an evolving beast!

UberPubert:
Motive, proof or reason for what? Believing what I believe? I don't have any factual evidence to prove to you I believe in logic, it is a decision made entirely in my head, and I can really only give you my word on it. I can sing logic's praises, use it in an argument to deconstruct an opponents proposition or even use it to solve an equation, but if you're calling me a liar there's not much I can do to convince you now can I?

There's always something you can do. A person is only as great as their heart lets them be. A coward says otherwise, especially one who governs by facts. You've failed your own test.

Also, you're wrong. A person is a product of the environment. All the morals you hold are because of you're upbringing. You did not simply decide one day that logic should dictate your life: something convinced you. It might've been an event or a person or even a history lesson, but you cannot give yourself sole credit.

tehpiemaker:
Semantics, that's all you're arguing my illiterate friend. Semantics. Danger can be anything: snakes, pain, death, losing money, or find yourself in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe you don't fear them like a phobia, but you do avoid them. Again, when I imply something I do something in the assumption that the person I'm writing to is smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. Forgive me because I was obviously wrong.

Again with the insults, are you sure you're my friend? Avoidance is not the same thing as fear. You can certainly avoid something out of fear, but that's far from the only reason. Again, maybe it's wrong, maybe you're avoiding it out of self-control, or if it's something like a topic of conversation you might even avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable or bores you. None of these things have to be about fear, and if you're implying that it is for me that's a baseless accusation you have no proof of and I have continuously denied.

tehpiemaker:

I'm including your source cited but not excluding other examples. I never said that being tall was necessary, but I did say that we can evolve in ways that aren't necessary. Evolution isn't merely about survival. Technology evolves even though we did find with what we had. Also, tall is not in itself desirable, but what it symbolizes is. Purple used to a symbol of wealth because of how expensive the die was. So where purple clothing could get a lot of attention. Today's equivalent would be people with abs and chiseled bodies. It's actually very expensive and time consuming to get that type of body so normally only wealthy people have them.

What other examples? And how is evolution not about survival? If a member of a species dies before they can pass on their traits, then the species will continue on without them, as in their inability to survive means their traits no longer decide how future members of the species will evolve. What does being tall symbolize, if not the symbol of health that the article I posted postulates? Besides that, your hypothesis is incorrect: Lower class people have more children, and due to a lack natural predators or rampant disease, more of them are alive than the children of rich upper class people. Arguing for evolution on that knowledge, again, shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker?

tehpiemaker:
Who's the presumptuous one now! "...if you'd like for me to educate you..." Do you know what a hypocrite is? A hypocrite is you. Look at all you're previous quotes and see how all over the place you are. You never agree with anything; not even yourself! You used to say Logic should be the best way to conduct yourself. Now you say no philosophy is better than any other. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even know? You never answer questions because you have no answers. You act like you know everything! But Logic is different given any situation and all this I was trying to get you to admit that you just don't have the answer! You loop around and around because being right is more important to you than anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but wise man knows himself to be a fool." --William motherfuckin' Shakespeare

You're entire philosophy hinges on it being possible for it to know absolutely everything. But you can't. That's the truth you can't admit to. No one will ever, ever know all the facts. Logic is consequential! Itself is an evolving beast!

No, I said logic is a better way, not the best, and that'd I'd very much like if people used it. I said people choose many different philosophies, not that any of them are correct (though I have stated that some are incorrect). I do have answers, you're just asking the wrong questions and trying to trap me with faulty information. I also find it strange you keep assuming I think so highly of myself when I've said more or less the opposite at every turn. Who I am is unimportant to the central point. I didn't invent logic, I just rather like it - lots of other people do too, in fact, that's one reason it exists in the first place - but I'd never assert that I am flawless for subscribing to it, only that I try to better myself by using it. Also, quoting Shakespeare is an appeal to false authority. He was a poet, actor and playwright, not a philosopher or scientist.

My philosophy doesn't hinge on knowing "absolutely everything", just knowing all the relevant variables in an equation. And yes, because we might not know what all of those are at any given moment, mistakes can be made, but the objective of logic is to find the best possible solution, given the facts that we can assemble. The core philosophy is not an evolving beast, only the arguments it can be used in, as more pertinent information can be brought to light.

tehpiemaker:
There's always something you can do. A person is only as great as their heart lets them be. A coward says otherwise, especially one who governs by facts. You've failed your own test.

Also, you're wrong. A person is a product of the environment. All the morals you hold are because of you're upbringing. You did not simply decide one day that logic should dictate your life: something convinced you. It might've been an event or a person or even a history lesson, but you cannot give yourself sole credit.

Your heart doesn't decide who you are, that would be your brain, or more specifically memories stored in your brain. You have failed at basic human biology.

I wasn't wrong, once again you've just made incorrect assumptions about what my statements might have implied. But okay, I decided logic was the best course of action in arguments when I read it in a book during an Ethics class while we were going over logical fallacies and debate tactics. Logic is the only academically accepted way of conducting an argument, so I thought "why not try applying it to daily life?", since I see the same fallacies being made on non-academic issues. It hasn't failed me in navigating more complicated issues and it's stayed my hand when I might have otherwise acted unwisely.

UberPubert:
Again with the insults, are you sure you're my friend? Avoidance is not the same thing as fear. You can certainly avoid something out of fear, but that's far from the only reason. Again, maybe it's wrong, maybe you're avoiding it out of self-control, or if it's something like a topic of conversation you might even avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable or bores you. None of these things have to be about fear, and if you're implying that it is for me that's a baseless accusation you have no proof of and I have continuously denied.

What other examples? And how is evolution not about survival? If a member of a species dies before they can pass on their traits, then the species will continue on without them, as in their inability to survive means their traits no longer decide how future members of the species will evolve. What does being tall symbolize, if not the symbol of health that the article I posted postulates? Besides that, your hypothesis is incorrect: Lower class people have more children, and due to a lack natural predators or rampant disease, more of them are alive than the children of rich upper class people. Arguing for evolution on that knowledge, again, shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker?

No, I said logic is a better way, not the best, and that'd I'd very much like if people used it. I said people choose many different philosophies, not that any of them are correct (though I have stated that some are incorrect). I do have answers, you're just asking the wrong questions and trying to trap me with faulty information. I also find it strange you keep assuming I think so highly of myself when I've said more or less the opposite at every turn. Who I am is unimportant to the central point. I didn't invent logic, I just rather like it - lots of other people do too, in fact, that's one reason it exists in the first place - but I'd never assert that I am flawless for subscribing to it, only that I try to better myself by using it. Also, quoting Shakespeare is an appeal to false authority. He was a poet, actor and playwright, not a philosopher or scientist.

My philosophy doesn't hinge on knowing "absolutely everything", just knowing all the relevant variables in an equation. And yes, because we might not know what all of those are at any given moment, mistakes can be made, but the objective of logic is to find the best possible solution, given the facts that we can assemble. The core philosophy is not an evolving beast, only the arguments it can be used in, as more pertinent information can be brought to light.

Your heart doesn't decide who you are, that would be your brain, or more specifically memories stored in your brain. You have failed at basic human biology.

I wasn't wrong, once again you've just made incorrect assumptions about what my statements might have implied. But okay, I decided logic was the best course of action in arguments when I read it in a book during an Ethics class while we were going over logical fallacies and debate tactics. Logic is the only academically accepted way of conducting an argument, so I thought "why not try applying it to daily life?", since I see the same fallacies being made on non-academic issues. It hasn't failed me in navigating more complicated issues and it's stayed my hand when I might have otherwise acted unwisely.

*super face palm* Okay dude, I get it. You lack any ability to think abstractly, and you don't seem to be able to read a person on an emotional level. When I said "friend" I was being sarcastic, obviously. Couldn't you tell by me telling you outright that I don't respect you? Or that I've been generally antagonistic? I swear it's almost sad how much you completely fail. Also, you're arguing semantics yet again.

A philosopher is someone who talks or thinks about philosophy. Anyone, including Shakespeare, can be a philosopher as long as they do this. You're a philosopher, technically if inexperience. So here you are again, changing the meaning of a word to suit your needs. You don't even care do you? You don't know so you make shit up! It was the same for evolution too! I swear to god you must be in 8th or 8th grade!

You thought I was being literal when I talked about the heart?! I was speaking figuratively! Do you even understand the concept of symbolism?! Have you ever, once in your life, taken a literature course?! Have you ever thought critically about poem or story?! No, I refuse to believe that you could be so willfully ignorant. I've been speaking in metaphors for the past several quotes, but now you're just being stupid! It's a joke is what it is. You're playing me for a fool and I've let myself get here. What does that say about me? Probably a lot.

Failure, you're a failure at everything. I bet people don't like talking to you if this entire debate is anything to go on. This is how I picture your conversations going.

"That guy sure was an asshole!" remarked some dude scathingly.
"Incorrect, an animal cannot consist entirely of being an anus," says you.

"Jesus Christ, that last M. Night Shyamalan movie was really bad," said your mom.
"My name is not Jesus Christ, mother. Also your opinion was subjective and therefore illogical," says you.

"Drink in the country air," sighs your psychiatrist.
"You cannot drink air," you remark.

Jim, you and I rarely ever disagree, but this is one of those times. I don't feel that rage or spewing venom on anyone is every helpful. Even more so as gamers. We already have a terrible stigma in both the Media and with the general populous due to just such emotions. Yes we tend to be overly emotive and involved in our video games, and rightly so. It is no different than a cinephile having an issue with terrible dialogue, CG, or acting, but we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

First off we need to become much more organized, as a community we are a collective of singular entities with a few groups here and there. If we actually organized ourselves, we would be quite the commanding force in the video game industry. Even if it was just a small community such as the escapist. If we (the escapist members and staff) collectively made a statement about a particular subject or issue we have with an upcoming game from any developer (including EA) and brought it to them as a unified force, I would be almost certain that the change was made (provided it wasn't detrimental to their overhead or business decorum).

So, I say instead of anger, we need unification. Lets create a coalition of gamers to bring about real change in the AAA industry. Lets stop making death threats, as the only serve to run talent out of the industry, and start making well thought out suggestions with the weight of a gaming army behind it. How much good do you think a smattering of angry people would do when compared to such a cohesive force?

 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
Registered for a free account here