Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

My God, are you in deep shit now. Prepare yourself for the attack that will ensue, because the things you feel (that you cannot change) are not allowed.

I'm surprised we're on page two of this thread and no haters have come in to trumpet about how the original mistake wasn't a mistake at all but malfeasance that allowed him to make this apology video, a second monetized video in one week to trick people into granting him more views and more ad revenue.

...You know, now that I've said it aloud, I actually kind of hope that is what happened. Milk the haters, Mr. Sterling! Milk 'em 'til their udders fall off!

anthony87:
A day later there's a new video actually responding to criticism and the ability to acknowledge that he fucked up.

THIS is why I fucking love Jim.

Bingo. Journalistic integrity is a rare thing to be treasured when found.

Abnaxis:
Alright, hear me out on this one for a sec, not completely sure what I think yet.

Whenever I run across the "homosexual option" in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, much eye-rolling is usually had. The thought that immediately comes to mind is "token gay relationship ahoy!"

That's my instinctive problem with the issue: not the inclusive-ness, but the token-ness. The gay relationships aren't included because it makes sense with the narrative or the setting or the characters, but rather because the developers have a check-box to mark off, to stave off controversy.

Which to be perfectly fair, is a criticism that applies for most romance options offered in any recent title. Romance isn't included in any way that makes sense, it's just there because fans expect it (at least the vocal ones do). However, for some reason the shallowness always seems worse in the gay options--probably because the romance is already awkward and lacking in any nuance when it's written and developed by heteros, for heteros.

I think a lot of times, people just instinctively pick up on the shallow corporate cynicism involved in including a gay option for PR's sake, and it gets misconstrued as bigotry when they balk at it.

I don't understand this. The dialogue for the romance options in DAII is pretty much exactly the same, regardless of your gender. And yet, the homosexual options are more shallow? Does not compute, dude.

Captcha: "Like the dickens". Not me, personally, but everyone should be allowed to, whether in real life or in a video game.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Ugh. Bad analogy bro. Murderers should bother you. They hurt and kill people. They're a threat to society and everyone in it. As such they are typically excluded. Gay people being gay hurts no one. The state of being gay is not a threat to anyone's safety, as such, excluding them is unfair and wrong. You are wrong for thinking your irrational prejudice matters more than the happiness of others.

Also, one last thing: you weren't born not liking gay people. Likely you were socialized at a young age to think less of the idea. Maybe if you thought a little more about why this is, why your skin crawls at the very acknowledgement of a person's homosexual identity, you might be able to overcome your irrationality and maybe even learn a little about yourself as a person.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Having an irrational fear of homosexuals in this way means you are literally homophobic, and unfortunately for your argument phobias are learned behaviors either via trauma or the environment. You can seek out a mental health professional to help you deal with these issues if you think it is impacting yourself and those around you negatively.

Oh of course Jim is trying to spin a narrative that the ONLY people mad at Nintendo's apology are the sexism brigade -_- yeah Jim, SJWs never get mad at public apologies by saying asinine shit like "oh it was insincere" before proceeding to increase the vitriol of their bile spewing.

Whenever Jim hazards to talk about this stuff he just exposes himself as more and more of an untrustworthy propaganda machine that is more interested in strengthening the narrative than report the truth. Disappointing.

I also don't see how apologizing for fucking up is something worth saluting. Jim as said himself "how about don't fuck up in the first place, doing what you should have done from the start later isn't worth applause." Not bashing Jim for apologizing and admitting his misinformation (so much as I am for the rest of the video that is entirely one sided and ignores an entire facets of the issues surrounding the apology from Nintendo to hyper focus on the minority of 'dudebros' weighing in and ignoring the vast majority of SJWs who are the ones actually making this worse but oh no don't mention that can't complicate the narrative) just pointing out the kinda sorta unintentional hypocrisy of folks in the comments here praising him for something when he's already spoken out against the exact thing you are doing here now with him in the past.

ExtraDebit:
Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism.....

Uh, what? We have all of those things in the world, so they definitely aren't mutually exclusive.

Folji:

ExtraDebit:
Can you see the irony in all this? You said it yourself "One person's dislikes shouldn't be the deciding factor in another person's enjoyments" the thing is: it could go both ways, what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

What if Nintendo decided to include white supremacy as a concept in the game, just because there are people who want that. How would any non-white person enjoy the game then? The difference between including that, though, and including different sexualities is simply down to giving people the freedom to express themselves like they are. A person's sexuality, just like their skin colour or nationality, is a part of who they are. It doesn't represent their views, doesn't mirror their attitude, it's a part of them just like their gender and nationality would be.

And surely it's wrong to exclude someone for their skin colour, right? Especially when it's just to be inclusive to people who hate that skin colour?

Last time I checked, "phobia" isn't a view, attitude or choice. "Phobia" isn't hate, it is having an adverse effect in the presence of something or somewhere and is very well a part of us just like gender and nationality. People that afraid of heights didn't choose it, they were born that way.

Why is it ok to hate on someone that have a phobia but is wrong for someone to have a phobia? Note that phobia does not equate "anti", someone with cat phobia isn't someone that wants to kill all cats, they only want to stay away from them because they have an adverse effect around them, I should know since my aunt have cat phobia and she is completely paralyzed when next to the furballs but she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia. Now supposed you're a cat lover, would you subject the person with cat phobia to be torture in a room fill with cats because you think cats are adorable and they are wrong?

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

Deadagent:
There, apology accepted. Oh and Social Justice definetly IS a zero sum game. Gay rights however, are a completely seperate matter. And remember this thing began a movement headed by a reasonable person, of course batshit SJW's joined the party and started going crazy.

The problem is, that people coming into these threads and screaming "SJW" don't seem to be making many distinctions between rational people and these supposedly "batshit crazy SJWs" - they will rant about these "SJW" if any of these topics are even brought up - regardless of any more nuanced or reasonable positions on the matter.

It seems that "SJW" is the latest bogeyman for some, in a "burn the witch" kind of irrationality that is just as irrational as the craziest that "SJW" has to offer. The fact that such people come up with stupid terms like "SJW" and "White Knight" show just how weak their arguments are, and how unable of carrying a rational debate they are, so they simply resort to name-calling and hysteria.

It's similar, for example, to how some people have been programmed to believe that any mention of Obamacare equals "death panels" and "socialism."

Let me quote some Cow & Chicken for that: "Only REAL man aren`t afraid to play with dolls!!!"

I tip my hat to Jim & Nintendo!

ExtraDebit:
... she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia.

No, it's not the same. Homophobes want to remove rights from gay people - and in extreme cases, want to beat them up or kill them.

ExtraDebit:
Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

Does this apply to straight people as well? I see a hell of a lot more lewd public displays of affection from straight people than I do gays. And no, they are not "parading it" in front of you- they are merely expressing their affection to one another. It has nothing to do with you.

As for "making people uncomfortable" - then we could never do anything in public. Almost everything we do could offend or make somebody uncomfortable. If people have such problems with normal, non-disruptive public behavior, then it's probably a good idea if they don;t go out in public. It's not the public's job to shield them from things they don't like (as long as those things are legal, non-violent, etc.).

EDIT:

Also, I'd say that you aren't born with phobias. They are learned behavior - and they can be controlled and treated. they aren't like allergies, which are physical conditions. They are entirely treatable psychological phenomena.

randomthefox:
Oh of course Jim is trying to spin a narrative that the ONLY people mad at Nintendo's apology are the sexism brigade -_- yeah Jim, SJWs never get mad at public apologies by saying asinine shit like "oh it was insincere" before proceeding to increase the vitriol of their bile spewing.

Whenever Jim hazards to talk about this stuff he just exposes himself as more and more of an untrustworthy propaganda machine that is more interested in strengthening the narrative than report the truth. Disappointing.

I also don't see how apologizing for fucking up is something worth saluting. Jim as said himself "how about don't fuck up in the first place, doing what you should have done from the start later isn't worth applause." Not bashing Jim for apologizing and admitting his misinformation (so much as I am for the rest of the video that is entirely one sided and ignores an entire facets of the issues surrounding the apology from Nintendo to hyper focus on the minority of 'dudebros' weighing in and ignoring the vast majority of SJWs who are the ones actually making this worse but oh no don't mention that can't complicate the narrative) just pointing out the kinda sorta unintentional hypocrisy of folks in the comments here praising him for something when he's already spoken out against the exact thing you are doing here now with him in the past.

The issue you are experiencing is disagreement with Jim. The argument you make about people getting praised for their mistakes is flawed. Nintendo made a mistake, fixed it and owned up to it. EA deliberately made a 'mistake' and charged money to fix it expecting praise. There is no similarity between these two situations.

Thumbs up, Jim. We need more people that are you on this website. Address poor behavior, encourage good behavior...this is called progress.

Also, about the coding stuff: I've noticed that people in the Facebook comments and some random bits here and there keep claiming they know enough about coding that there's a "gay/not gay" switch in the game somewhere, and I feel like this is patently ridiculous even without going into specifics.

He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

The rest of it was respectable though - learning from the situation and developing yourself is the only way to go forward.

Smilomaniac:
He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

Being vague was the misrepresentation. He clarified, and it's not a misrepresentation any more.

Not that I'm against homosexual relationships in a life-sim, makes sense for that choice to be there, but I have to say that doing it properly does in fact take something away from those who would otherwise not use it. A game isn't reality, where making things legal and accepted is more a matter of dealing with the asshats holding up the process. It's something that time and money are spent making, and every feature added is almost certainly another feature if not discarded, then likely receiving less polish and/or depth. Depending on the feature, it may require changes and/or additional work in many other aspects even further exacerbating the opportunity cost of the feature. And that's without getting into the fact that if poorly implemented a feature may well damage ones enjoyment of other features in a game. That's just how features and options in general work when making anything really.

Aardvaarkman:

ExtraDebit:
... she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia.

No, it's not the same. Homophobes want to remove rights from gay people - and in extreme cases, want to beat them up or kill them.

ExtraDebit:
Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

Does this apply to straight people as well? I see a hell of a lot more lewd public displays of affection from straight people than I do gays. And no, they are not "parading it" in front of you- they are merely expressing their affection to one another. It has nothing to do with you.

As for "making people uncomfortable" - then we could never do anything in public. Almost everything we do could offend or make somebody uncomfortable. If people have such problems with normal, non-disruptive public behavior, then it's probably a good idea if they don;t go out in public. It's not the public's job to shield them from things they don't like (as long as those things are legal, non-violent, etc.).

EDIT:

Also, I'd say that you aren't born with phobias. They are learned behavior - and they can be controlled and treated. they aren't like allergies, which are physical conditions. They are entirely treatable psychological phenomena.

Some anti-gay movements said the same, that homosexuality is a learned behavior and a psychological aliment (saw it from religulous), however this isn't about me, its isn't about you, everybody will forgets everybody that had this conversation after a day, there is only the conversation. After that we will probably go on believing what we believed and never changed just as Jim accused us that we would, maybe some of us will have a changed in opinion and actually profit from these post.

Smilomaniac:
He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

The rest of it was respectable though - learning from the situation and developing yourself is the only way to go forward.

Basically trying to explain my motive for doing the video the way I did. In my mind, I was giving a vague overview and simply assuming everyone would know the fuller story so I didn't have to clarify it further. What I was actually doing was misrepresenting the situation to a point where, as we saw, people felt dishonesty was in play.

I don't really agree with apology = weakness. Seems like a petty excuse to kick somebody when they're already down.

Well this was swell of you, Jim, and it's always nice to get an extra episode.

There is a time to stick to your guns and there is a time to admit when you're wrong and apologize. Nintendo's position was the latter.

There are still bits missing from the narrative. As Jim himself said the majority of the first world, let alone the rest of the world, still isn't all that accepting of homosexuality. Japan is part of the majority on that one. It could definitely be taken as a political statement there, same goes for many other places. Is that good? No, but it does help explain the "we didn't want to make any political statements with tomodachi life" bit from earlier. Furthermore, some people's (myself included on this one) arguments against the Miiquality campaign was that Nintendo has always been skittish about localizing quirky Japanese titles, and a shitshow like this one may cause them to rethink doing this again. I know that some people will say "oh you're not giving Ninty enough credit" or "oh he's a bigot because muh feelings" but this is Nintendo we're talking about, I wouldn't call Xenoblade a quirky Japanese title, and yet it took concerted effort to get that game released overseas

ExtraDebit:
Last time I checked, "phobia" isn't a view, attitude or choice. "Phobia" isn't hate, it is having an adverse effect in the presence of something or somewhere and is very well a part of us just like gender and nationality. People that afraid of heights didn't choose it, they were born that way.

Why is it ok to hate on someone that have a phobia but is wrong for someone to have a phobia? Note that phobia does not equate "anti", someone with cat phobia isn't someone that wants to kill all cats, they only want to stay away from them because they have an adverse effect around them, I should know since my aunt have cat phobia and she is completely paralyzed when next to the furballs but she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia. Now supposed you're a cat lover, would you subject the person with cat phobia to be torture in a room fill with cats because you think cats are adorable and they are wrong?

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

It's also spiteful, petty and immature to wish something away just because someone can't handle it, and that's the biggest issue at hand if you ask me. It's fair enough that a person who has a phobia for cats shouldn't be forced to be locked up in the same room as a bunch of cats, but does that mean the entire neighbourhood should be deemed a cat-free environment? Again, one person's dislike of something should not be the stepping stone for someone else's freedom to pursue it. If one person can't stand homosexuality, their "fear" of it shouldn't become equivalent to "no gays allowed". People should be free to pursue and enjoy the things that come natural to them without having that spoiled just because someone else doesn't like the thought of it. It's selfish.

Not to mention that just because the gay option is there, that doesn't mean it has to be pursued. But that honestly speaks for itself. And while the same thing can't be said for a lot of phobias, homophobia is one of those situation where the "-phobia" part has just lost any meaning it might have once had. When you're talking homophobia, you're rarely talking fear. You're talking hatred. It really has become synonymous with an anti-standpoint to homosexuality, which really is a shame because it is altogether just a big blob of an excuse for selfishly bashing someone for something that really should concern no-one but themselves.

And if someone is genuinely homophobic in the sense that the sight of two guys or two girls kissing debilitates them... then, really, I just pity that person.

ExtraDebit:
I am neither condoning or condemning difference in people nor am I promoting or supporting hatred, I'm just trying to interpret people's hatred that derived from differences, whether is gay/gay supporter's hate on homophobes or homophobes hate of gays.

Can you see the irony in all this? You said it yourself "One person's dislikes shouldn't be the deciding factor in another person's enjoyments" the thing is: it could go both ways, what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

First part: there's a difference between calling somebody subhuman/treating somebody as subhuman because you think that you are the superior specimen of mankind due to genetics, and being angry for being called subhuman. Reducing this to an "unresolved difference of opinion" is some sort of defense mechanism to actively avoid addressing large inequalities in society, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to directly undermine that situation, or if I don't have to start invoking Godwin's law.

Secondly, the presence of gay people anywhere doesn't actually actively impose on anybody's business, aside from actually challenging their belief that gay people exist, or are as human as they are, which if we were to attempt to hide, would be doing a disservice to, y'know, reality. Nintendo would also have a strong incentive to not include homophobes because they go through great lengths to prevent trolling in their online games, so there's that.

As for you being uncomfortable with seeing gay affection: how do you think gay people feel about straight affection, in many movies, books, games? If they were uncomfortable with it, would we have to exclude ALL relationships? You can't just write half of that check and try to dodge the question.

Evonisia:
I don't really agree with apology = weakness.

Oh yeah, I meant to comment on that but got distracted with smartassery.

Is all that "apology is weakness" and "changing your mind is weakness" stuff really true? I mean, are there people you can point at who actually believe that? Because I don't know, maybe it's just a generational thing, but I was raised to believe that sticking to your guns in the face of evidence to the contrary and refusing to apologize for your mistakes are not signs of weakness, they're signs that you're a prepubescent child who needs to go to bed without dinner to think about himself.

Jimothy Sterling:

Smilomaniac:
He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

The rest of it was respectable though - learning from the situation and developing yourself is the only way to go forward.

Basically trying to explain my motive for doing the video the way I did. In my mind, I was giving a vague overview and simply assuming everyone would know the fuller story so I didn't have to clarify it further. What I was actually doing was misrepresenting the situation to a point where, as we saw, people felt dishonesty was in play.

You assumed that everyone knew the story that clearly few people understood at all, and was already being misrepresented all over the web? Forgive me Jim, but I definitely got the impression that you didn't know the story yourself.

You're saying otherwise, so I trust that's true; I'm just letting you know how it looks.

JimB:
Is all that "apology is weakness" and "changing your mind is weakness" stuff really true? I mean, are there people you can point at who actually believe that? Because I don't know, maybe it's just a generational thing, but I was raised to believe that sticking to your guns in the face of evidence to the contrary and refusing to apologize for your mistakes are not signs of weakness, they're signs that you're a prepubescent child who needs to go to bed without dinner to think about himself.

Haven't you ever had that feeling, the nagging in the back of your head telling you to stand by your claims even if it's just for the sheer principle of it? Even the history books are pretty riddled with incidents people have refused anyone trying to prove them wrong, much less been willing to admit to being wrong and apologising for it, all for the sake of not losing face.

JimB:

Is all that "apology is weakness" and "changing your mind is weakness" stuff really true? I mean, are there people you can point at who actually believe that?

It completely permeates modern culture. Especially in politics, where being a "flip-flopper" is considered to be worse than being factually wrong and subscribing to completely crazy ideas. The news media almost always portrays changes of opinion as weak - and complex views that don't boil down to simple black-and-white matters are also portrayed as weak or affected.

But even in general discourse online - how often do you see someone in an online discussion (whether that is forums, Twitter, whatever) admit that they made a mistake and were wrong? It's very rare, people will stick to their position, no matter how thoroughly it has been disproven. And that's how people get followers, that's how people are "strong" - because there's always somebody willing to support that position - as long as they don't show any sign of weakening, or conceding a point to the other side.

Outside of online discourse, I see the same a lot in University classrooms - where somebody has concocted a "clever" position that they want to stick to the professor (usually for political reasons) - and they will never back down. Not the least because if they do admit they are wrong, that would nullify their complaint against the professor for discriminating against their point of view.

EDIT:

I'd even go so far to say that this phenomenon exists well beyond the political/discourse realms, and into the mundane aspects of every day life, like driving and shopping.

Somebody acted like a dick and dangerously cut you off while driving? Good luck getting an apology for that. You're more likely to get the finger for being in their way. Somebody's talking on their phone during a movie in the cinema? You're the asshole for being bothered by that. Asking politely if somebody could move their shopping cart so you can get to the milk? Fuck you!

I'd almost go as far to say that the motto for the current era should be the sarcastic non-apology "soooorrrr-eeeeeeee."

Smilomaniac:

Jimothy Sterling:

Smilomaniac:
He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

The rest of it was respectable though - learning from the situation and developing yourself is the only way to go forward.

Basically trying to explain my motive for doing the video the way I did. In my mind, I was giving a vague overview and simply assuming everyone would know the fuller story so I didn't have to clarify it further. What I was actually doing was misrepresenting the situation to a point where, as we saw, people felt dishonesty was in play.

You assumed that everyone knew the story that clearly few people understood at all, and was already being misrepresented all over the web? Forgive me Jim, but I definitely got the impression that you didn't know the story yourself.

You're saying otherwise, so I trust that's true; I'm just letting you know how it looks.

I think there are old episodes of my Podtoid podcast where I talk about the glitch controversy back when it was happening in Japan, so yeah, I knew the basics. I won't claim I knew more THAN the basics, though, and that I couldn't have stood to have researched things way more thoroughly than I did.

Folji:
Haven't you ever had that feeling, the nagging in the back of your head telling you to stand by your claims even if it's just for the sheer principle of it?

Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a cunt.

Aardvaarkman:
But even in general discourse online - how often do you see someone in an online discussion (whether that is forums, Twitter, whatever) admit that they made a mistake and were wrong?

Almost never, but I also never hear anyone praise them for that kind of behavior, nor attack those who do admit error. In my experience, people are likely to applaud someone who shows the maturity to back down from a wrong belief.

Jimothy Sterling:

Smilomaniac:

You assumed that everyone knew the story that clearly few people understood at all, and was already being misrepresented all over the web? Forgive me Jim, but I definitely got the impression that you didn't know the story yourself.

You're saying otherwise, so I trust that's true; I'm just letting you know how it looks.

I think there are old episodes of my Podtoid podcast where I talk about the glitch controversy back when it was happening in Japan, so yeah, I knew the basics. I won't claim I knew more THAN the basics, though, and that I couldn't have stood to have researched things way more thoroughly than I did.

Well that settles it then, I'm glad :)

JimB:
Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a cunt.

Nobody said was a good nagging to listen to! Maybe save for the people who do actually listen to it. Which is a lot of people actually. So those people would say it's a good thing to stick by one conviction no matter how weird it is. And like Aardvaark said, that kind of attitude really does permeate modern society. Arguably it runs deep through the whole history of mankind.

Folji:

JimB:
Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a cunt.

Nobody said was a good nagging to listen to! Maybe save for the people who do actually listen to it. Which is a lot of people actually. So those people would say it's a good thing to stick by one conviction no matter how weird it is. And like Aardvaark said, that kind of attitude really does permeate modern society. Arguably it runs deep through the whole history of mankind.

Okay, I think I see where the error is. When Mr. Sterling said it's viewed as weakness, I thought he was talking about others, not oneself. Have I misunderstood?

JimB:
Okay, I think I see where the error is. When Mr. Sterling said it's viewed as weakness, I thought he was talking about others, not oneself. Have I misunderstood?

It's all more of a general standpoint, the strong holds their ground and only the weak stands down, and by apologising for the whole situation Nintendo is apparently weak according to some. Strangely popular attitude! Especially when it takes more to understand one's own errors (and learn from them) than it does to just stay rooted to a misconception, you know?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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