Jimquisition: Toxic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

*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?! 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 in air," you remark.

I don't lack the ability to think abstractly, I just don't think it's a relevant tool in an argument. When I called you friend I was only joking. It's not semantics, I'm talking about the actual definitions of words. Fear does not mean avoidance, nor does it mean any of the things I mentioned before, and it's not an insignificant point. You are saying something that is untrue, correct yourself if you must, but as it is written you are wrong.

A philosopher isn't just someone who talks about philosophy, it's someone who studies philosophy, who is knowledgable on the subject and contributes to it with educated opinions. In this sense, yes, I could nearly call myself a philosopher. I won't, but technically that's true, yes. But Shakespeare didn't call himself a philosopher, that's not what he's known for and there's no evidence suggesting he studied it. Just because he might say things that sound philosophical does not make him a good philosopher. I'd even agree with the quote you wrote - though not because Shakespeare made it - but would argue that it does not apply to me, because I do not think myself to be a wise man. I defer judgement to people much wiser than myself, which is why I choose logic in the first place rather than coming up with my own system where I'm always right, because I'm not always right, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I will always try to be and correct myself where needed.

I didn't think you were being literal when you were talking about a heart. That was also a joke. And why is a literature course so imperative to my understanding an argument or conveyance? A literature course is where literature is studied, as in books, and the symbolism therein. That's not helpful in an argument about things not related to books, and your ability to write or allude to symbolism is not a formula for making a salient point on a matter. I'd suggest a composition course instead, where you can learn sentence structure, how to phrase a persuasive essay, and grammar.

And my gosh, one last rant on how you suppose I conduct myself - in my personal life, unrelated to arguments no less! But, in my infinite patience, I will correct you where needed.

I would tell the man "No, that guy isn't an asshole, he was acting like an asshole, and spewing shit."

I would tell my mother "Well, I'm not jesus christ, but I do agree that movie was pretty bad."

I would tell my psychiatrist "The country air is full of bugs or pesticide, and I will suffer neither."


Well aren't you just one classy motherfucker. I was being satirical. But I bet you wouldn't know half the words I'm using or how to use them properly. Wow, listen to me. I'm starting to sound like this is some dick measuring contest. However, I think that's what this fight has turned in to. You don't really care about being right. You care about winning this fight. (<---Look at that, a rhyme. A poet am I.)
All we're arguing now is Semantics and it's pathetic as seeing two horny dogs fighting over the rights to mate with a hole in the wall. I brought you down to my level by trying to discredit me. You're making assumptions with wild abandon just like you chastised me for. So I call you, Hypocrite. Pathetic. You lie to yourself and pretend you're something you're not: better than me.

You call this a fight, I call this a simple conversation. As in, me conveying my ideas to you, that's all this ever was. How you've decided to see it is entirely up to you, but I'll still disagree. I'm not interested in winning a fight or being right because that was never my intention in these posts, I was only explaining myself and my position.

I chose my words very carefully, you called them something they were not and derived meaning from them that was incorrect. The distinction between definitions of a word is semantics, but when you choose to ignore the meaning entirely, arguing semantics becomes necessary in order to establish a common language. I haven't come down to your level trying to discredit you because, again, that was never my intention, I was only defending my viewpoint. I'm not making assumptions about anything, I'm just reading your points back to you to show they don't make sense, and your last responses seem to indicate you agree.

Also, sticks and stones may break my bones, etc. I don't care if I'm "better" than you, I don't even know who you are. And you don't know who I am either, much as you like to think otherwise.


You're so blind you can't even see yourself for what you are. Maybe that's what it's like being a vampire: no reflection. You didn't choose your words carefully. You chose them with all the consideration of child learning how to speak for the first time. Then you had the gall to say I IGNORED the meaning's?! Then, in the ultimate display of irony, you argued the meaning of semantics with me. SEMANTICS! If that isn't irony then I don't know what is; then you'll try to correct me. You'll fight, and have been, tooth and nail over the pettiest of details! A fight, as define it, is two or more people having a coming to blows. This is that. This is me telling you how childish both of us have been! I do say both because it takes two to waltz, and what a drunken waltz it is! You're scared to make any blind leaps and would likely fail any workplace trust tests! You've failed--utterly failed--to use basic techniques to make a stable argument; instead using some form of backwards logic that is as toxic to read as it is to try understanding!

You repeatedly state that you have no motive for "winning" this squabble, which I bet neither you nor I even remember what the matter we've started squabbling over, despite continuing on and on. Here's some basic logic for you! Everything happens for a reason. I'm being figurative or spiritual in saying that. It's BASIC logic. People do things because they have a motive! Yet you claim to not have one, which is infuriating! It comes across as you trying to say, "I'm so great that I don't even have reason to argue with you, though I do so because I wish to grace you with my vast knowledge." It's so pompous it makes me sick! I was wrong. You care more about seeming intelligent than you do of actually being intelligent.

You're the worst person to socialize with and I hope to never come across you even on my best of days! If there was even the inkling of truth in what you said when you stated that you did not dislike me then do me this service, as empathy from one human being to another. Do not respond. I do not care how you read into that request, just don't do it. The greatest satisfaction I will gain out of all of this is that you will not receive the petty victory of having the last word, and that all the things you still wish to say will not be said. If you truly have no motive and hold no aggression towards me, then do this in my name... motherfucker.

I don't see what's wrong with arguing semantics if one party is unwilling to participate in a common language. If words and their meanings are being misinterpreted, then they must be explained, there is nothing petty about trying to reach a clearer understanding with someone. We have not "come to blows", not on any intellectual, emotional and certainly not physical sense of the phrase, and I harbor no antagonistic ill will towards you that would facilitate such an exchange, I simply do not think there is anything to fight about. Again with the metaphors: I'm not afraid to take blind leaps, but I'd still rather look out below, if someone said they'd catch me I might believe them (given good reason) but I am prepared for the possibility that they'll let me fall. There's nothing backwards about my logic as I've written it, I've only had to deconstruct it for your benefit, but if you read what I wrote in the beginning there is no contradiction and it makes fine logical sense.

I actually do remember what this started over, I've looked back a few pages to see what that was. I explained, just as I still hold now, that I don't think feelings and emotions have a place in Economics, which I explained later as being a science to which logic was applicable. What do you mean you're being figurative or spiritual in saying everything happens for a reason? You don't need to do either, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is reason enough, you don't need to get all metaphysical on me. But just because everything has a reason doesn't make any reason the right one, sometimes it's not the reason we think and the matter requires further investigation. You claim to know my motive, and I've explained several times how what you thought my motive was is wrong, I offered you politeness and you wrote it off as a falsehood simply because you were not reciprocating of the notion. I take issue, again, with this idea that this conversation boils down to me lording my supposed knowledge over you. That is not the point here, I'm only explaining what it is I believe, and it's not like my belief is guarded, vague or obscure, you can find reference to logic anywhere, we use it to some degree almost every day.

You're right, I don't always make for great conversation, but that has little to nothing to do with me choosing logic over irrational behavior. For me logic applies to mathematics, science, and rational discourse, so long as I'm not engaged in any of the three with someone the subject doesn't even come up, once more disproving an assertion of yours that logic somehow dominates my life. It does not.

You should know by now I'm not interested in empathy, and while I find your pleading amusing I see no reason to abide by it. As you've made it abundantly clear, you are not my friend, and I don't do favors for strangers. Disconnect your begging from any false accusations about my character or what I believe and I could leave it alone, otherwise I will continue to respond to help clarify things for you to the best of my ability.

Just throwing my opinion here onto the pile.

People are talking about whether they should target their rage at the CEO or the Company or whatever.

The answer is actually none of those things. You should target your anger at the action itself that made you ticked in the first place. There is no need to find out who to place the blame on. That way, no one innocent is caught in the rage and the action will still be discouraged.

The problem though is that this is all assuming at least a majority of gamers won't throw around their rage indiscriminately. Sadly, this is just not the case so in the end, since the rage we vent is so chaotic, I feel it really should be discouraged. If you can't say anything nice ever, don't say anything at all.


You're a petty, despicable creature, and that's me putting it gently. Just say what you mean or forever hold your peace. I want you summarize in just one sentence what your point is. Just one. I already know what you are. You're a pompous child who wants to appear to be my superior. You have no empathy, but you try to justify your philosophy anyway by claiming it would make the world a better place despite that such thing would matter little to an egotistical, self-righteous, narcissistic ninny such as yourself. The original subject didn't truly matter to you in the first place. Once somebody challenged you itt was all about winning from there on. What philosophy justifies that? At least you admitted it in the in. You admitted that you're an apathetically asshole. Everything else in between was just pussy-footing around the fact. I'd think you'd actually enjoy Ayn Rand. You two share much in common. Both of you are dead--one literally, one figuratively--and both of you are ethical egoists.

All you ever told me is that I'm wrong; but you never told me why. Then you acted all appalled, like it you were being perfectly clear. You weren't. You are liar more often than a truth-teller.

By the way, your diction is atrocious. Have fun, you know...being an asshole. But hey, at least you're an asshole who gets the last word. I hope it fills the void.

My point is the same as it's ever been: Passion has no place in Economics. Though, you could specify what I should be making a single-sentence point about. Are you asking me to summarize what logic is? Are you asking me to prove that I like it, or make a point about why? I find your request to be vague considering your long line of replies.

To say I have no empathy is a large leap from what I actually said, being that I'm not interested in empathy, specifically for or from you, when applied to the context of the post I made it in, in response to your plea for empathy. I'm perfectly capable of empathy in the real world, but I don't think it's a legitimate tool in any kind of constructive discussion. I do think the world would be a better place for using rationale and logic more frequently, I never said it'd be perfect but I think we should strive for that improvement. I've even conceded it wouldn't solve everything on multiple occasions, though I still insist it's a better tactic than what most people would suggest, once more including things like blind rage or venom. Also, I don't need to justify logic. When properly used it's self justifying because it's just a way of using mathematical constants as universal truths expressed as language and ideals, it's right because the system it's born from is one we all agree to because reality as we know it would not be explicable without it. Logic does not claim to have all the answers, but so long as it has the facts it can provide a solution, and until the facts are proved false it remains true.

If the original subject didn't matter to me then why would I bother commenting on it in the first place? And why does me trying to answer questions or address criticism in an attempt to win an argument devaluing my original standpoint? Just because these things don't relate to our current discussion does not mean I hold them as constants for every discussion I have. Sometimes I am interested in winning a debate, there's no fault in that when I don't claim to be doing otherwise. Healthy debate in a forum of one's peers sharpens the wit and helps one practice what they might say.

I have not admitted I'm an "apathetically asshole", I'd argue I'm neither of those things. If I was apathetic I wouldn't care to respond or comment in the first place, and while in fact I rarely do, that is more from the standpoint of a reserved opinion. Sometimes I simply don't know all the facts I need to debate a point I care about, and so I'll withhold it until more information can be divulged, because arguing from ignorance is faulty, even if by chance you end up being right. I'm also not an asshole because, as you said, "Incorrect, an animal cannot consist entirely of being an anus.".

I told you you were wrong for making assumptions about me, and those assumptions are still wrong. If you asked questions rather than made blanket statements, I'd be more than happy to answer them, but making general accusations about people and expecting them to respond with a lengthy counterargument isn't fair. If I say that you are a manatee, are you going to respond with photos of yourself, a birth certificate and driver's license to prove that you are in fact a human, or are you going to reply simply that you are not a manatee? The burden of proof has always been laid at the feet of the accuser, not the accused.

What's your problem with my diction? I'm always open to honest feedback. Again, I can't be an asshole, and while I'm fine with the last word there's no hole for it to fill.

I prefer the pure rage and bile from anita sarkeesian.. "critics", than the smarmy, politically correct smartasses that seem to have popped up all over the place. The kind that wont insult you directly, because they think of you as just another internet idiot and have to flash some sort of superiority card and make you look like you're inane, whether they read/understand what you write or not. Yes, I'm referencing to the reactions I often get(because like other hotheads on the intarwebs I blurt out what I feel), but also what I'm often seeing, especially on this forum.

The first is at least honest, even if it's stupid and borderline criminal.
As for the second, it's pretty much what we're currently seeing in the American government, a load of bullshit that they believe in themselves, from both parties.

Like Jim, I believe in directed, purposeful rage that doesn't fire indescriminately, as a tool to be used with companies.
As an example there was a group of activists where I live, who fought to keep their building as a clubhouse of sorts. It wasn't until they threw a toilet out the window, that they got real attention from the press and the matter was settled(not in their favor). While I don't agree with their cause, the sad fact of the matter is, that when you're dealing with blurred entities like companies, you have to throw a few toilets out the window to get noticed and get results.

The moral high ground arguments like "vote with your wallet", "send a letter", "be the better person and do x" are all utopian wish fulfilment fantasies that I want to be true, but just have no effect.
When companies stop stonewalling you at every turn, maybe we can have professional and respectful discourse. Until then, the porcelain will keep flying.

That Toxic ending was mandatory, and was much more appealing than the video to the song (though 10 years of being beaten with it will sicken most).

I'm dying here. Jim, you're my favorite person.

I've always thought of myself as a particularly level-headed person.

I think there's a place for rational debate and there's a place for campaigning / protesting with a specific goal in mind. I wouldn't refer to that as "anger" or "venom" though. Those are, to my mind, entirely negative emotions - "emotion" being the key word there. I don't have a problem with forceful discourse, but let it be rational.

And this should really not need to be said, but I don't think you made it clear in your video, Jim: there is absolutely no place in gaming culture, or any other culture, for misogynist shitwads who turn the bullying and harrassment of female journalists into some kind of hateful "game". None. You have a right to state your opinion, as others have a right to state theirs. What you do NOT have a right to do is persecute someone for making comments that you don't like.

I disagree with Jim on pretty much anything not game related but man that ending was awesome.

It's funny I kind of zoned out during your rant, but I did start thinking about something important. I started thinking about how the rise of big-name-nerd video commentators has served as an antidote to the "Native Guerillas" that game studios employ to manipulate discussions in message boards. You can look this up, there are companies whose sole business is to monitor online discussion and to manipulate it. Not just game publishers, though they have admitted that they do this but other businesses and political organizations as well.

You might scoff at this idea, but I've read testimonials from former employees, they're a lot better at this than you may think. Now with guys like Jim, we finally have a voice to fight back with.


Wow, you destroyed that dude! He even got suspended, lol! I guess it just goes to show that people like him always get what's coming to them, especially when they're as stupid as him.

That was not my intention but I understand why it was done, and I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I was not the one who flagged his comments for moderation.

Jim, did you lose weight?

Jim, I think I've said this before, but you really should consider voice acting. I would buy any game if you're the villain in it.

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but the way I see it anger is not so much a tool as a drive. It's what powers the weapon rather than the weapon itself. Anger is what motivates someone to shout about something, not the thing the slap the publisher in the face with. What should be equally important is not just who we direct our anger at, but how we manifest it. Because in the end, even if your anger is the most well-deserved possible, it will amount to little if all you do is bombard someone's twitter feed with blatantly offensive and quite cruel threats. Not that anyone here would do that, but it's something to keep in mind. Don't just think who - think how.

I think it is unfair that you are haveing so much fun doing your job-

God save jim sterling lol. I come back hopping for episodes like this. Your a sole bright star mr Sterling in a other wise sea of dull bland shite.

Keep being you Jim, i'll keep watching ^^.

This was terrible (as a lot of Jim's videos tend to be when he seems to presume that the "gaming community" is anything more than a bunch people who the only thing they have in common is that they play games).

The video could've been cut short to "hate on the things I think are bad (like Alien Colonial Marines) not the things I think are good (like who-ever-her-name-is that made those terrible feminism and gaming videos)".No really. As much as Jim tries to play up the whole "Hahaha, I joke that I'm so full of myself which proves how humble I really am" he really is startign to value hiw own opinion a bit too highly, and actually get full of himself.

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.

Its true that not everyone in the gamer community, if you can call it that, is of the same mindset. But the truth is that if you are ever on a message board, YouTube comment or anything else on the internet with interest to games has often become common to see violent threats, the refusal of ones right to an opinion, ganging up on a singular person or various "isms."
That is not to say we all have issues, but as shown by every form of media that has often come under fire, we need to put our best foots forward, encourage discussion and allow it to be inclusive, if only for the reason that more people means newer games and ideas.

As such, one. if you see toxicity taking place, like bullying, you have to try and stop it or you are helping the problem and two. anger and fan collaboration can result in change, much like protests in the 20th century, we must be taken seriously and focus on companies that can actually create a change. Not on single people or just because someone "wrote a line of dialogue we didn't agree with" or had a complaint about the medium.

As for making us look bad and people not caring, we are still Fox news, who has millions of view, using us as their common scape goat, companies are losing developers and creative minds who are sick of being pushed around, thus hurting the industry and all in all, it makes it hard when you want to talk to people about something you like or bring up a game of a forum without either being insulted or starting an unintentional debate. As such, Toxicity is a problem.

I think Jim Sterling undermine his argument. It's alright to be upset about things. Just be upset about things that matter. Therefore, anyone who gets upset about videogames is wrong. All I have to say to anyone who thinks women are oppressed by videogames: Look up the name Malala Yousafzai. Anyone who gets upset that your character do bad things in a game named after a felony; upset that a female character doesn't wear, looks, and act the way you wanted to; upset that a game obviously over-promised on what it can deliver; or anything else related to videogames are just crybabies complaining about first world problems.

I really wish it was possible to scorn Anita Sarkeesian without it being about the sexist gamer angle.

Those last few moments of the video have singlehandedly convinced me to attend the next Escapist Expo.

You know, for a chubby guy (it's okay that I say it, I'm fat too! herpderp) He's actually not a bad dancer.

Say what you will about What's-Her-Face, but Toxic is one helluva catchy tune ^^

the last bit was funny as heck!!

So basically: less of this http://gamerfury.tumblr.com/ and more of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6itaMKk2W_Y

Henry Rollins.... Congratulations sir, that video made me cry :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here