I don't expect to be more famous then them or anything like that. But If I'm actually having fun with it, well it's better than listening to people who hate me over differing opinions.
Just because we think your a few of your positions are wrong and are vocal about it doesn't mean that we hate you. I think we've said that about a dozen times now.
So instead of complaining to Podcasters and their audience, who I assume very few of actually like me or care about my opinion, I should just do my own podcast. They say the best revenge is living well. So my revenge to Scott and Rym for calling me a terrible person is have fun making my own podcast!
Feel free to ask for technical advice if you need it, in fact, I'm pretty sure there's already a thread around here somewhere. There's more than a few people here who have podcasts and know their shit, it's not just Scrym.
Well my main criticism of his criticism is that it is negative and doesn't create anything.
That's a far deeper philosophical argument than I'd like to have, but on the very basic level, not everything has to. In fact, I'd even say most critique doesn't, outside of itself of course. I mean, I think we can both agree that Matt Ward fucked over 40K pretty bad, but our critiques don't really add anything to 40K - but that doesn't make them invalid, nor does it mean that Matt Ward's bullshit isn't super bullshit.
The other side of that coin, of course, and mostly just to get it out of the way, is that critique in and of itself is an act of creation. You create the critique of the work, and the critique itself exists as a mostly independent thing. It can be small, like a tweet, or large, like a savage review or a video series, but it's still something that you've created. But like I said, more of a philosophical argument than I really want to have, so let's leave all that be if at all possible.
Ok. The lot of you are arseholes and Anita Sarkeesian is a thoroughly unlikable individual for whom I hold in the lowest regard possible. To call her a "Bitch" is an insult upon dogs.
That this is your argument against progressivism is one of the most pathetic thing I have seen this year. Are you fucking serious, the best you can come up with is that we are assholes? A precocious toddler has better rhetoric than this.
We're having bureaucratic monologues
Do you know what "bureaucratic" means?
The people having these monologues are not interested in the solution, only about ranting endlessly about it as a means of income.
People who bloviate about the secret true intentions of others probably also shouldn't whine incessantly about people putting words in their mouths. Glass houses, etc.
I think the GooberGators have been the most nursed individuals in the history of this forum, I don't know how this topic still exists on this forum
The problem with the debate is that you have a large group of uneducated people being exposed to a formal approach and review of an issue.
If an individual is new to the approach it can be jarring and if you are irrational you become a 10 year old fuckwit on the Internet using Reddit level argumentation techniques which simply don't work if you are having a discussion with normal people.
The only way to respond to the approach is in a formal, impersonal response with appropriate reasoning(this is how it works in most professional journals). If you can't argue on this level you look like an idiot regardless if you are correct or not.
Doing this on the Internet = doxxing, rape threats, death threats injected with the cesspool of all shit on the Internet. Goobergators need to just abandon their side because you are all idiots by association. Like the real life GG guy I met in real life, he had no fucking clue that he was representing misogynists, racists, homophobes and general assholes but I treated him as such. I think most others on the forum have nursed Halfmoon and Conan-san to stay with GG. Therefore expect to be spoken to as if you are representing the dregs of the Internet.
I didn't need to come up with you being an Arsehole, malzraa, you are an Arsehole.
At this point I've abandoned any hope of this ending and it doing so in a fucking dialogue because, frankly, the moderates on both sides are getting shouted down.
Though really, what should I expect? I dare to want a dialogue, not a monologue that bitches at me because patriarchy doodbro "Kill Or Be Slaughtered" privilege or whatever the fuck.
The current situation being as it is suits the people it suits just fine and we're just stuck with the industry being stuck in this ouroborus.
We are The X-Men whose fighting a never ending battle suits Marvel just fine.
At this point I've abandoned any hope of this ending and it doing so in a fucking dialogue because, frankly, the moderates on both sides are getting shouted down.
Oh, I didn't see you edit that last post.
You claim to be a moderate, but got to the point of:
Anita Sarkeesian is a thoroughly unlikable individual for whom I hold in the lowest regard possible. To call her a "Bitch" is an insult upon dogs.
So a) I don't believe you're actually a moderate, and I don't believe you'd recognize a dialogue if it came up and held a meaningful conversation in your face, and b) You've done away with any reason I had for being remotely civil to you.
I don't think that banning an topic is solution here, it's difficult to enforce and is just avoiding the issue of individual cunts who don't fit nor have room in the community. Disposing those individuals could be a solution though.
I missed the whole thing and I had so many good points! Oh well. At least goober had crawled back to his hole. Not that I think Conan would have actually read or listened to anything. He seemed pretty hell bent on ignoring anything he disagreed with. That and the fallacies about Sarkisian (like her or not) and the really weak, stretch arguments to link her and totally unrelated issues. As usual, Churbs already said much of what I wanted to, only with less insults and swearing.
Hey they banned religion arguments for the same reasons that are happening in this thread. I.E. Nothing new is brought to the table and the one side won't answer the questions presented.
Naw, I think I'll just stay and hold Sarkesian and her lot in contempt.
How is that not an extreme position, a moderate would disagree and seek to point out where her argument is weak or flawed instead of resorting to ad hoc attacks.,
Wrong. The moderate realizes that the whole issue is bigger than any one or two personalities, and thinks any debate that focuses on any one person is fucking boring and irrelevant.
...because I don't walk in lockstep with the progressive mad this makes me a pig fucker so whatever.
What I find hilarious is that these two in particular seem to continually reframe things to denigrate the "left" or "progressivism" as though either of these things has anything to do with the very specific discussion of how messed up a subset of videogame fans tend to be.
Why do these GG types unfailingly get back to unrelated politics, and why are they invariably anti-"left" or anti-"progressive"?
At the same time, how come a good many of their supporters (remember skull man and belt guy?) are far right wing?
Hey they banned religion arguments for the same reasons that are happening in this thread. I.E. Nothing new is brought to the table and the one side won't answer the questions presented.
We didn't ban religious arguments per se. We banned any argument surrounding the veracity of specific religious claims unless said person could first disprove the core argument of disprovability (e.g., the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the invisible unicorn).
People can argue about religion here all they want. But they can't argue about unprovable magic claims being true unless they get past the simplest argument against that concept. They only have to answer one question. ;^)
...because I don't walk in lockstep with the progressive mad this makes me a pig fucker so whatever.
What I find hilarious is that these two in particular seem to continually reframe things to denigrate the "left" or "progressivism" as though either of these things has anything to do with the very specific discussion of how messed up a subset of videogame fans tend to be.
Why do these GG types unfailingly get back to unrelated politics, and why are they invariably anti-"left" or anti-"progressive"?
At the same time, how come a good many of their supporters (remember skull man and belt guy?) are far right wing?
Because GamerGate is at its core a politically conservative movement. They believe that the state of video games is fine as it is, that problems within it do not really exist, that the problems that occur are natural consequences to how the market has shaped the environment in order to serve most people, and that any attempt to improve or change things is an intrusion.
Comments
The other side of that coin, of course, and mostly just to get it out of the way, is that critique in and of itself is an act of creation. You create the critique of the work, and the critique itself exists as a mostly independent thing. It can be small, like a tweet, or large, like a savage review or a video series, but it's still something that you've created. But like I said, more of a philosophical argument than I really want to have, so let's leave all that be if at all possible.
The problem with the debate is that you have a large group of uneducated people being exposed to a formal approach and review of an issue.
If an individual is new to the approach it can be jarring and if you are irrational you become a 10 year old fuckwit on the Internet using Reddit level argumentation techniques which simply don't work if you are having a discussion with normal people.
The only way to respond to the approach is in a formal, impersonal response with appropriate reasoning(this is how it works in most professional journals). If you can't argue on this level you look like an idiot regardless if you are correct or not.
Doing this on the Internet = doxxing, rape threats, death threats injected with the cesspool of all shit on the Internet. Goobergators need to just abandon their side because you are all idiots by association. Like the real life GG guy I met in real life, he had no fucking clue that he was representing misogynists, racists, homophobes and general assholes but I treated him as such. I think most others on the forum have nursed Halfmoon and Conan-san to stay with GG. Therefore expect to be spoken to as if you are representing the dregs of the Internet.
At this point I've abandoned any hope of this ending and it doing so in a fucking dialogue because, frankly, the moderates on both sides are getting shouted down.
Though really, what should I expect? I dare to want a dialogue, not a monologue that bitches at me because patriarchy doodbro "Kill Or Be Slaughtered" privilege or whatever the fuck.
The current situation being as it is suits the people it suits just fine and we're just stuck with the industry being stuck in this ouroborus.
We are The X-Men whose fighting a never ending battle suits Marvel just fine.
You claim to be a moderate, but got to the point of: So a) I don't believe you're actually a moderate, and I don't believe you'd recognize a dialogue if it came up and held a meaningful conversation in your face, and
b) You've done away with any reason I had for being remotely civil to you.
Please, do everyone a favor and fuck off.
Not that I think Conan would have actually read or listened to anything. He seemed pretty hell bent on ignoring anything he disagreed with.
That and the fallacies about Sarkisian (like her or not) and the really weak, stretch arguments to link her and totally unrelated issues.
As usual, Churbs already said much of what I wanted to, only with less insults and swearing.
Why do these GG types unfailingly get back to unrelated politics, and why are they invariably anti-"left" or anti-"progressive"?
At the same time, how come a good many of their supporters (remember skull man and belt guy?) are far right wing?
People can argue about religion here all they want. But they can't argue about unprovable magic claims being true unless they get past the simplest argument against that concept. They only have to answer one question. ;^)