I guess my issue with this line of reasoning is that it just seems way to close to the arguments that Jazz/Comic Books/Rock/Heavy Metal/Rap/Video Games are corrupting the youth.
To me, it's not what a person watches or reads or listens to that defines them, but what they choose to do in life. I use to clean up movie theaters, and the slasher films would always be the cleanest, tidiest ones. Not what you'd expect from blood and guts, rip and tear aficionados, but there you go.
Fortunately no one has said that any single thing that a person consumes necessarily defines their entire life.
Some of the posts in this thread seem supportive of making personal judgments based on that. Which is understandable, we all make judgments every day. But if you see me reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged and write me off as an objectivist before finding out I'm reading it see how Rand's philosophy and her own life don't synch up, or to prepare for my next BioShock playthrough, then that's doesn't seem great to me.
I assure you that Preacher does in fact think it's possible for Patriots fans to contribute to society.
I guess my issue with this line of reasoning is that it just seems way to close to the arguments that Jazz/Comic Books/Rock/Heavy Metal/Rap/Video Games are corrupting the youth.
To me, it's not what a person watches or reads or listens to that defines them, but what they choose to do in life. I use to clean up movie theaters, and the slasher films would always be the cleanest, tidiest ones. Not what you'd expect from blood and guts, rip and tear aficionados, but there you go.
Fortunately no one has said that any single thing that a person consumes necessarily defines their entire life.
Some of the posts in this thread seem supportive of making personal judgments based on that. Which is understandable, we all make judgments every day. But if you see me reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged and write me off as an objectivist before finding out I'm reading it see how Rand's philosophy and her own life don't synch up, or to prepare for my next BioShock playthrough, then that's doesn't seem great to me.
I assure you that Preacher does in fact think it's possible for Patriots fans to contribute to society.
BULLSHIT THEY ARE ALL GARBAGE PEOPLE BORN FROM MUD THEY SHALL RETURN TO MUD! THEIR ONLY CONTRIBUTION WILL BE TO THE WORMS TO THE FUCKING WORMS!!!!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Nah it doesn't endorse violence it just endorses mass genocide, completely different thing.
Well that isn't endorsing though is it? At no point does anything we know so far make the hero idolized. Is choosing to have the player character being utterly deranged a endorsement or simply a representation.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
I guess my issue with this line of reasoning is that it just seems way to close to the arguments that Jazz/Comic Books/Rock/Heavy Metal/Rap/Video Games are corrupting the youth.
To me, it's not what a person watches or reads or listens to that defines them, but what they choose to do in life. I use to clean up movie theaters, and the slasher films would always be the cleanest, tidiest ones. Not what you'd expect from blood and guts, rip and tear aficionados, but there you go.
Fortunately no one has said that any single thing that a person consumes necessarily defines their entire life.
Some of the posts in this thread seem supportive of making personal judgments based on that. Which is understandable, we all make judgments every day. But if you see me reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged and write me off as an objectivist before finding out I'm reading it see how Rand's philosophy and her own life don't synch up, or to prepare for my next BioShock playthrough, then that's doesn't seem great to me.
I assure you that Preacher does in fact think it's possible for Patriots fans to contribute to society.
BULLSHIT THEY ARE ALL GARBAGE PEOPLE BORN FROM MUD THEY SHALL RETURN TO MUD! THEIR ONLY CONTRIBUTION WILL BE TO THE WORMS TO THE FUCKING WORMS!!!!
Get mad about all of our Superbowl appearances, which is both tied for the most of all time, and is well ahead in terms of most since 2000.
programjunkie on
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Being created by suspected Neo Nazis means people get antsy about games like this than they usually do.
Is there any proof of this or was it a twitter rumor?
there is one guy on the dev team who liked the facebook page of a heavily white supremacist band. suspicion of the rest grew out of guilt by association
Being created by suspected Neo Nazis means people get antsy about games like this than they usually do.
Is there any proof of this or was it a twitter rumor?
there is one guy on the dev team who liked the facebook page of a heavily white supremacist band. suspicion of the rest grew out of guilt by association
Here is a more in depth write up on the associations and a rebuttal from the developers.
Nah it doesn't endorse violence it just endorses mass genocide, completely different thing.
Well that isn't endorsing though is it? At no point does anything we know so far make the hero idolized. Is choosing to have the player character being utterly deranged a endorsement or simply a representation.
The fact that several members of the Hatred development team openly like multiple extreme right groups on Facebook shows, to Pankowski at least, that they are supportive of these groups’ ideals.
For instance, the CEO of Destructive Creations Jaroslaw Zielinski defended his right to like an organization called Polska Liga Obrony, or the Polish Defense League, on Facebook. He has previously stated to Polygon that "it's source of an information [about] what is going on right now in the middle-east and Europe (and a lot of evil shit is going on) … Some things media would not show, nor tell."
Zielinski went on to stress that his like was not a form of endorsement.
"That doesn’t sound convincing at all," Pankowski said. He classifies the Polish Defense League as an "anti-muslim organization" with "Islamophobic, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant" tendencies. He emphasized the militant aspect of the group, saying that they’ve gone out of their way to intimidate and physically harass non-whites in public spaces.
Facebook likes, Pankowski says, are more than just a way for big corporations to build their brand and create a following. Radical political organizations gather their support there as well, and liking the Polish Defense League fuels their particular brand of hatred in a direct way.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Games can certainly endorse things, that's like trying to claim any art can't be political or have a message. All art usually does, well all good art usually does.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
See now I know I can write off jeep from any contribution to society. You don't talk shit about the painter of mother fucking light jeep, I don't care if your from alabama so the pincale of art is when a hurricane overturns all your mobiles!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
See now I know I can write off jeep from any contribution to society. You don't talk shit about the painter of mother fucking light jeep, I don't care if your from alabama so the pincale of art is when a hurricane overturns all your mobiles!
I'm pretty sure if someone used Kinkade's self-proclaimed title as the "painter of light" to my face I would stab them.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
If the makers of Hatred decided to make the protagonist a fat, a woman, or a ginger the internet might actually implode.
They'll probably make it a brown haired white dude though so everyone can agree it is the worst thing ever in unanimity.
Who the protagonist is is the least controversial issue with the game. In fact, I can't recall anyone having problems with it. Not that the game wouldn't have gotten criticized like it has anyway.
How utterly shocking to find the protagonist of Hatred is a brown haired white dude.
Who the protagonist is is the least controversial issue with the game. In fact, I can't recall anyone having problems with it. Not that the game wouldn't have gotten criticized like it has anyway.
See I think with a different protagonist the game would receive quite different criticism. Possibly from a completely different group of people.
Not that I am disagreeing with you that the protagonist isn't at all controversial in the face of the premise.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Who the protagonist is is the least controversial issue with the game. In fact, I can't recall anyone having problems with it. Not that the game wouldn't have gotten criticized like it has anyway.
See I think with a different protagonist the game would receive quite different criticism. Possibly from a completely different group of people.
Not that I am disagreeing with you that the protagonist isn't at all controversial in the face of the premise.
All I could see is them adding people. Make the game star a black man and all the sudden all the people who are already pissed about the game are still pissed, along with any racists.
Making the game about a person who is a minority killing people wouldn't make the game all the sudden seem more appealing to anyone who already despises it.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Nope.
yep.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Who the protagonist is is the least controversial issue with the game. In fact, I can't recall anyone having problems with it. Not that the game wouldn't have gotten criticized like it has anyway.
See I think with a different protagonist the game would receive quite different criticism. Possibly from a completely different group of people.
Not that I am disagreeing with you that the protagonist isn't at all controversial in the face of the premise.
The game itself and the politics surrounding it make this a no win scenario for the creators. That's how badly they fucked up. Hasn't GTA had minority protagonists? Did they get any heat for that? Then again Rock Stars Games aren't thought to be Neo Nazis or anything so
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Which people? How?
All people, emotionally.
Even people who don't personally experience it?
In that case, not directly by the art.
But if someone were to say... make a TV show about transgender folks that completely misrepresented them in ways that led to people assuming things about transgender folks that weren't true.
Then I'd say that art indirectly hurt those people in a way where the art and the creators are responsible for those misconceptions and harm done to that group.
GTA San Andreas had a black protagonist. GTA 5 had one of the three be black (though the other two were whitey white dudes).
I think making a game where you murder innocent people screaming does put you in a bad place as far as "Does my game have any merit whatsoever?"
Much like playing on the New York Knicks this year means while you are playing basketball for money its hard to call yourself a "professional basketball player".
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Nope.
yep.
You're conflating various concepts and actions and removing all context. This isn't useful. If you would like to explain what's wrong with a particular idea is wrong go ahead. But don't just say "This is just like this other thing," not actually explain how it is, then decide to be flippant when I don't do it for you. That isn't constructive at all.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Nope.
yep.
You're conflating various concepts and actions and removing all context. This isn't useful. If you would like to explain what's wrong with a particular idea is wrong go ahead. But don't just say "This is just like this other thing," not actually explain how it is, then decide to be flippant when I don't do it for you. That isn't constructive at all.
I did explain it, and you responded to my explanation with a single word.
I don't understand the sentiment behind judging someone based solely on the media they enjoy. If you're talking about whether or not you decide to chat someone up, or if you invite someone to your house, then sure it doesn't really matter what your criteria are. As was pointed out you can also make such decisions based on the sports team that someone roots for. The criteria here simply doesn't matter because they are not important events.
But let's get back to something more important like whether or not a person should be shamed or say fired because of the media the enjoy. Your position seems to be that you are god-emperor of good taste. The second you know someone enjoys something you find to be distasteful, you can immediately write them off as a good person. They should be shamed, maybe the should even be fired, they certainly shouldn't be listened too. I find this strikingly similar to the stance many republicans take, in that they believe they simply know what is right and what is wrong, and it's really just not that hard. So the second anyone disagrees or holds a position the don't agree with, well they should be shamed, maybe even fired, and certainly shouldn't be listened too. It seems a pretty apt comparison to me, so I'm not sure what context you think exists to make them disparate ideas.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Games can't endorse anything. People can. And can be judged for it.
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
I avoid the word offense, as I don't think it is useful. I hope you will too, as well as sarcasm about fainting.
I... you are trolling right? Please Poe's law has been in effect so long I can no longer tell parody apart from what is real. You surely mean what you wrote in jest right?
If not I really really wish books warning us of a dystopian future would be less... accurate.
"Do you ever read any of the books you burn?"
He laughed. "That's against the law!"
"Oh. Of course."
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Nope.
yep.
You're conflating various concepts and actions and removing all context. This isn't useful. If you would like to explain what's wrong with a particular idea is wrong go ahead. But don't just say "This is just like this other thing," not actually explain how it is, then decide to be flippant when I don't do it for you. That isn't constructive at all.
I did explain it, and you responded to my explanation with a single word.
I don't understand the sentiment behind judging someone based solely on the media they enjoy. If you're talking about whether or not you decide to chat someone up, or if you invite someone to your house, then sure it doesn't really matter what your criteria are. As was pointed out you can also make such decisions based on the sports team that someone roots for. The criteria here simply doesn't matter because they are not important events.
But let's get back to something more important like whether or not a person should be shamed or say fired because of the media the enjoy. Your position seems to be that you are god-emperor of good taste. The second you know someone enjoys something you find to be distasteful, you can immediately write them off as a good person. They should be shamed, maybe the should even be fired, they certainly shouldn't be listened too. I find this strikingly similar to the stance many republicans take, in that they believe they simply know what is right and what is wrong, and it's really just not that hard. So the second anyone disagrees or holds a position the don't agree with, well they should be shamed, maybe even fired, and certainly shouldn't be listened too. It seems a pretty apt comparison to me, so I'm not sure what context you think exists to make them disparate ideas.
Yeah no one is saying anything about the bold, most of us is saying "I will not be friends with them." Which I admit my friendship is fucking amazing, but its not anything like you said.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No, reasonable people judge others for all sorts of things based on a variety of criteria depending on what it is they're looking for from others.
It's p good overall. Not perfect but p good.
Actually, between the judgments which are factually wrong, and those that are morally wrong, I'd say it has more of a checkered past than you suggest, or do you not know what people said about media in even the recent past? Or hell, today. A white person who has venomous contempt for people who listen to rap is revealing far more about themselves than someone who you happen to look over and see the name of a rap song pop up on their iPod.
Yes that different thing is indeed different. This is true. But not particularly convincing of anything.
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Nope.
yep.
You're conflating various concepts and actions and removing all context. This isn't useful. If you would like to explain what's wrong with a particular idea is wrong go ahead. But don't just say "This is just like this other thing," not actually explain how it is, then decide to be flippant when I don't do it for you. That isn't constructive at all.
I did explain it, and you responded to my explanation with a single word.
I don't understand the sentiment behind judging someone based solely on the media they enjoy. If you're talking about whether or not you decide to chat someone up, or if you invite someone to your house, then sure it doesn't really matter what your criteria are. As was pointed out you can also make such decisions based on the sports team that someone roots for. The criteria here simply doesn't matter because they are not important events.
But let's get back to something more important like whether or not a person should be shamed or say fired because of the media the enjoy. Your position seems to be that you are god-emperor of good taste. The second you know someone enjoys something you find to be distasteful, you can immediately write them off as a good person. They should be shamed, maybe the should even be fired, they certainly shouldn't be listened too. I find this strikingly similar to the stance many republicans take, in that they believe they simply know what is right and what is wrong, and it's really just not that hard. So the second anyone disagrees or holds a position the don't agree with, well they should be shamed, maybe even fired, and certainly shouldn't be listened too. It seems a pretty apt comparison to me, so I'm not sure what context you think exists to make them disparate ideas.
Yeah no one is saying anything about the bold, most of us is saying "I will not be friends with them." Which I admit my friendship is fucking amazing, but its not anything like you said.
My bad then. I'm not sure how the conversation got around to talking about how we pick our friends, but like I mentioned, it's not an important event so the criteria really doesn't matter. There's maybe large societal issues in play where people only befriend those people who are most like them which can contribute to a narrow world view, but that's a different topic.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
But let's get back to something more important like whether or not a person should be shamed or say fired because of the media the enjoy. Your position seems to be that you are god-emperor of good taste. The second you know someone enjoys something you find to be distasteful, you can immediately write them off as a good person. They should be shamed, maybe the should even be fired, they certainly shouldn't be listened too. I find this strikingly similar to the stance many republicans take, in that they believe they simply know what is right and what is wrong, and it's really just not that hard. So the second anyone disagrees or holds a position the don't agree with, well they should be shamed, maybe even fired, and certainly shouldn't be listened too. It seems a pretty apt comparison to me, so I'm not sure what context you think exists to make them disparate ideas.
No one has said this. So I'd rather not get back to "something more important" that no one has said if it's okay with you.
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Games can't endorse anything. People can. And can be judged for it.
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
I avoid the word offense, as I don't think it is useful. I hope you will too, as well as sarcasm about fainting.
I... you are trolling right? Please Poe's law has been in effect so long I can no longer tell parody apart from what is real. You surely mean what you wrote in jest right?
That some art can be harmful and offensive? I'm not exactly sure what is controversial about what he is saying if you have been paying anyattention at all to a certain movie that has been recently released. If you don't think art can reinforce negative emotions, stereotypes or similar: Then you aren't paying attention.
On Hatred, I am still very curious what got it an AO rating as it apparently has to be very disturbing/violent to get it from violence alone. So it will be interesting to see what they actually did and if it is Neo-NAZI minority shooting simulator as some have been asking for in their forums or not (I think they have wisely decided not to do that however).
Hasn't GTA had minority protagonists? Did they get any heat for that?
IIRC, yes, they did.
They caught shit for having a Cuban gang leader (NPC) declare that he hated Haitians (another gang that they were feuding with).
As far as I'm aware, they've only had three minority protagonists. But I don't know how much criticism they received on that front. The criticisms I remember were all about how San Andreas glorified gang culture. But I don't remember how much of that actually came from outside gaming communities.
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Which people? How?
There's this thing called minstrel shows that some groups find quite hurtful.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
On the topic of "Should I not be friends with someone who has Hatred?" I think that's wrong to outright decide to get rid of people just for having it unless of course, they are also plastering their steam profile with swastikas and similar. I mean going to the image I linked above of horrifically racist and awful tweets people made in response to American Sniper, some of my friends have seen the movie and even enjoyed it. We've had productive discussions about the movie and what it means as a war movie. I've not unfriended any of them for the fact they like a movie that I regard as jingoistic propaganda, because I would find that entirely unreasonable of me. On the other hand, had my friends then said ANYTHING like the above in response to it? You had better fucking believe that unfriend button would have been hit so hard and so fast, it would have broke my iPad in half. There is a difference between "I play and enjoy games with questionable content" and "I am a raging asshole who genuinely believes that this is something that is right to do".
Otherwise if anyone wants to unfriend me because I like to grab people in Sleeping Dogs and shove them in the boot of my car, before jumping off a bridge to slow motion dive out at the last second while the car splashes in the water, go ahead. You should know before you do that I don't approve of doing ANY of that in real life whatsoever. Just so you know. In fact I don't drive so I couldn't do it IRL even if I wanted to do so!
On the topic of "Should I not be friends with someone who has Hatred?" I think that's wrong to outright decide to get rid of people just for having it unless of course, they are also plastering their steam profile with swastikas and similar. I mean going to the image I linked above of horrifically racist and awful tweets people made in response to American Sniper, some of my friends have seen the movie and even enjoyed it. We've had productive discussions about the movie and what it means as a war movie. I've not unfriended any of them for the fact they like a movie that I regard as jingoistic propaganda, because I would find that entirely unreasonable of me. On the other hand, had my friends then said ANYTHING like the above in response to it? You had better fucking believe that unfriend button would have been hit so hard and so fast, it would have broke my iPad in half. There is a difference between "I play and enjoy games with questionable content" and "I am a raging asshole who genuinely believes that this is something that is right to do".
Otherwise if anyone wants to unfriend me because I like to grab people in Sleeping Dogs and shove them in the boot of my car, before jumping off a bridge to slow motion dive out at the last second while the car splashes in the water, go ahead. You should know before you do that I don't approve of doing ANY of that in real life whatsoever. Just so you know. In fact I don't drive so I couldn't do it IRL even if I wanted to do so!
Again, there's a line for me where I can't genuinely believe someone is enjoying something for the other content instead of the harmful content. Like, if someone is a fan of Rapelay, even if they claim it's for the gameplay, I want nothing to do with them. The same goes for hatred.
Hasn't GTA had minority protagonists? Did they get any heat for that?
IIRC, yes, they did.
They caught shit for having a Cuban gang leader (NPC) declare that he hated Haitians (another gang that they were feuding with).
As far as I'm aware, they've only had three minority protagonists. But I don't know how much criticism they received on that front. The criticisms I remember were all about how San Andreas glorified gang culture. But I don't remember how much of that actually came from outside gaming communities.
CJ from San Andreas
Luis from Ballad of Gay Tony
Huang Lee from Chinatown Wars
Vic from Vice City Stories
Franklin from GTA 5
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
On the topic of "Should I not be friends with someone who has Hatred?" I think that's wrong to outright decide to get rid of people just for having it unless of course, they are also plastering their steam profile with swastikas and similar. I mean going to the image I linked above of horrifically racist and awful tweets people made in response to American Sniper, some of my friends have seen the movie and even enjoyed it. We've had productive discussions about the movie and what it means as a war movie. I've not unfriended any of them for the fact they like a movie that I regard as jingoistic propaganda, because I would find that entirely unreasonable of me. On the other hand, had my friends then said ANYTHING like the above in response to it? You had better fucking believe that unfriend button would have been hit so hard and so fast, it would have broke my iPad in half. There is a difference between "I play and enjoy games with questionable content" and "I am a raging asshole who genuinely believes that this is something that is right to do".
Otherwise if anyone wants to unfriend me because I like to grab people in Sleeping Dogs and shove them in the boot of my car, before jumping off a bridge to slow motion dive out at the last second while the car splashes in the water, go ahead. You should know before you do that I don't approve of doing ANY of that in real life whatsoever. Just so you know. In fact I don't drive so I couldn't do it IRL even if I wanted to do so!
Again, there's a line for me where I can't genuinely believe someone is enjoying something for the other content instead of the harmful content. Like, if someone is a fan of Rapelay, even if they claim it's for the gameplay, I want nothing to do with them. The same goes for hatred.
I can understand that point of view to a degree, it's just my standard is to not only look at the kind of games they are playing and also how they tend to act in real life. I do admit though, I wouldn't really know how to feel about someone who thinks that Rapelay is a good game or even remotely entertaining, but I would at least listen to them first. My main issue with Hatred is that it seem like it's an entirely pointless "political" statement when games are 90% based solely on violent interaction as it is, which makes it more stupid than edgy and that the developers have massively concerning ties to right wing neo-NAZI movements in Europe.
There are a lot of things I like that some of my friends would have easily "unfriended" me over if they didn't decide to talk to me about. At University some of my friends were quite fundamentalist Christians and were really worried about the fact I ran DnD (yes, this is still an issue for some groups). When they were formally invited to a game by me and could actually see how it worked and what it was about, well, they're now life long converts to playing DnD and even after I moved on still do it. Of course DnD is nowhere near as offensive as Rapelay/Hatred (well, depending on your DM I guess) and the TT equivalent would be garbage like FATAL (which has detailed rules for genitalia and raping people). I admit, someone who thinks FATAL is great is more than likely got some very weird ideas but I would at least see what it was. If it was all the rules on rape in FATAL they liked and then I get some tirade about how women were asking for it IRL etc, yeah, I run the other way from that guy as fast as possible.
Games in many ways encourage and reward sociopathic behavior, such as GTA 5 and that game as has been argued in the thread, is a lot closer to Hatred than it is to say, Journey. The difference is that GTA 5 has a ton of merit outside of "Brutally murder NPCs who are begging for their lives", including an incredibly strong narrative, excellent side missions, sometimes cutting satire (and sometimes moments where they utterly fail, like their shots at trans people and entire lack of decent female characters) and just the sheer joy of exploration the world they have made offers. Again, I don't like Hatred and I support Steam telling them to screw of if they want, but I'm not about to unfriend anyone who owns it just for the sake of them owning it. Some people like to own things like Hatred and Ashes Cricket 2013 simply because owning things that are terrible, playing them and understanding them is how you learn to critique them.
Simply owning something does not tell you they are a terrible person or that they endorse every view of that piece of content. For example, I own Dragons Crown (free on PS+) and I enjoyed it for what it is: But the terrible depiction of women in the game is not endorsed by me simply by means of ownership.
Posts
I assure you that Preacher does in fact think it's possible for Patriots fans to contribute to society.
BULLSHIT THEY ARE ALL GARBAGE PEOPLE BORN FROM MUD THEY SHALL RETURN TO MUD! THEIR ONLY CONTRIBUTION WILL BE TO THE WORMS TO THE FUCKING WORMS!!!!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well that isn't endorsing though is it? At no point does anything we know so far make the hero idolized. Is choosing to have the player character being utterly deranged a endorsement or simply a representation.
Is there any proof of this or was it a twitter rumor?
It's not all that different. Many judgments people make about this sort of thing are provably objectively incorrect, and a lot of them besides are generally made by shitty people (religious fanatics, sophists, racists, etc), and there's not a lot of argument on the flipside that there is either a need or even a utility in doing so, so it seems pretty obvious to me there's a correct solution. The most obvious utility of judging people based on what they read / see / play would be determining whether to invite them to a particular movie or something, but even that case, which is both directly related and extremely minor, is still a shitty substitute for just asking them.
This goes doubly for Captain Nemo's point about being well read or in this case, well played. Consumption doesn't equate to agreement.
Get mad about all of our Superbowl appearances, which is both tied for the most of all time, and is well ahead in terms of most since 2000.
there is one guy on the dev team who liked the facebook page of a heavily white supremacist band. suspicion of the rest grew out of guilt by association
Here is a more in depth write up on the associations and a rebuttal from the developers.
http://gamepolitics.com/2014/10/20/hatred-developer-creative-destruction-denies-accusations-some-studio-members-are-neo-nazi#.VMLYiEfF98E
Rumor, that's why I said suspected. We do know they support extreme hard right wing groups, though.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/18/7417045/hatred-free-speech-and-one-developers-connections-with-polands-far
They're very different. Their only similarity is that they're both judgements. Then you change everything else about them.
And there's plenty of utility. That guy choosing black people cardboard cutouts for the range? I'm cool saying I don't want to hang out with him. I could be wrong. There could be a good reason for it. There almost definitely isn't and life's too short to explore every single person's existence before deciding whether or not they're getting a party invite. Bam, utility.
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
I avoid the word offense, as I don't think it is useful. I hope you will too, as well as sarcasm about fainting.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Which people? How?
They'll probably make it a brown haired white dude though so everyone can agree it is the worst thing ever in unanimity.
Thomas Kinkade artwork hurts me here:
pleasepaypreacher.net
All people, emotionally.
I'm pretty sure if someone used Kinkade's self-proclaimed title as the "painter of light" to my face I would stab them.
I'm not 100% sure though.
Isn't this kind of self reinforcing bubble the kind of thing we rail about in LOLpublican threads? The idea that you would dismiss something out of hand just because whoever was associated with it is someone you just know is worthless and has no good points ever?
Who the protagonist is is the least controversial issue with the game. In fact, I can't recall anyone having problems with it. Not that the game wouldn't have gotten criticized like it has anyway.
How utterly shocking to find the protagonist of Hatred is a brown haired white dude.
See I think with a different protagonist the game would receive quite different criticism. Possibly from a completely different group of people.
Not that I am disagreeing with you that the protagonist isn't at all controversial in the face of the premise.
Nope.
All I could see is them adding people. Make the game star a black man and all the sudden all the people who are already pissed about the game are still pissed, along with any racists.
Making the game about a person who is a minority killing people wouldn't make the game all the sudden seem more appealing to anyone who already despises it.
yep.
Even people who don't personally experience it?
The game itself and the politics surrounding it make this a no win scenario for the creators. That's how badly they fucked up. Hasn't GTA had minority protagonists? Did they get any heat for that? Then again Rock Stars Games aren't thought to be Neo Nazis or anything so
In that case, not directly by the art.
But if someone were to say... make a TV show about transgender folks that completely misrepresented them in ways that led to people assuming things about transgender folks that weren't true.
Then I'd say that art indirectly hurt those people in a way where the art and the creators are responsible for those misconceptions and harm done to that group.
I think making a game where you murder innocent people screaming does put you in a bad place as far as "Does my game have any merit whatsoever?"
Much like playing on the New York Knicks this year means while you are playing basketball for money its hard to call yourself a "professional basketball player".
pleasepaypreacher.net
IIRC, yes, they did.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
You're conflating various concepts and actions and removing all context. This isn't useful. If you would like to explain what's wrong with a particular idea is wrong go ahead. But don't just say "This is just like this other thing," not actually explain how it is, then decide to be flippant when I don't do it for you. That isn't constructive at all.
I did explain it, and you responded to my explanation with a single word.
I don't understand the sentiment behind judging someone based solely on the media they enjoy. If you're talking about whether or not you decide to chat someone up, or if you invite someone to your house, then sure it doesn't really matter what your criteria are. As was pointed out you can also make such decisions based on the sports team that someone roots for. The criteria here simply doesn't matter because they are not important events.
But let's get back to something more important like whether or not a person should be shamed or say fired because of the media the enjoy. Your position seems to be that you are god-emperor of good taste. The second you know someone enjoys something you find to be distasteful, you can immediately write them off as a good person. They should be shamed, maybe the should even be fired, they certainly shouldn't be listened too. I find this strikingly similar to the stance many republicans take, in that they believe they simply know what is right and what is wrong, and it's really just not that hard. So the second anyone disagrees or holds a position the don't agree with, well they should be shamed, maybe even fired, and certainly shouldn't be listened too. It seems a pretty apt comparison to me, so I'm not sure what context you think exists to make them disparate ideas.
I... you are trolling right? Please Poe's law has been in effect so long I can no longer tell parody apart from what is real. You surely mean what you wrote in jest right?
If not I really really wish books warning us of a dystopian future would be less... accurate.
Yeah no one is saying anything about the bold, most of us is saying "I will not be friends with them." Which I admit my friendship is fucking amazing, but its not anything like you said.
pleasepaypreacher.net
My bad then. I'm not sure how the conversation got around to talking about how we pick our friends, but like I mentioned, it's not an important event so the criteria really doesn't matter. There's maybe large societal issues in play where people only befriend those people who are most like them which can contribute to a narrow world view, but that's a different topic.
No one has said this. So I'd rather not get back to "something more important" that no one has said if it's okay with you.
That some art can be harmful and offensive? I'm not exactly sure what is controversial about what he is saying if you have been paying any attention at all to a certain movie that has been recently released. If you don't think art can reinforce negative emotions, stereotypes or similar: Then you aren't paying attention.
On Hatred, I am still very curious what got it an AO rating as it apparently has to be very disturbing/violent to get it from violence alone. So it will be interesting to see what they actually did and if it is Neo-NAZI minority shooting simulator as some have been asking for in their forums or not (I think they have wisely decided not to do that however).
They caught shit for having a Cuban gang leader (NPC) declare that he hated Haitians (another gang that they were feuding with).
As far as I'm aware, they've only had three minority protagonists. But I don't know how much criticism they received on that front. The criticisms I remember were all about how San Andreas glorified gang culture. But I don't remember how much of that actually came from outside gaming communities.
There's this thing called minstrel shows that some groups find quite hurtful.
Otherwise if anyone wants to unfriend me because I like to grab people in Sleeping Dogs and shove them in the boot of my car, before jumping off a bridge to slow motion dive out at the last second while the car splashes in the water, go ahead. You should know before you do that I don't approve of doing ANY of that in real life whatsoever. Just so you know. In fact I don't drive so I couldn't do it IRL even if I wanted to do so!
Again, there's a line for me where I can't genuinely believe someone is enjoying something for the other content instead of the harmful content. Like, if someone is a fan of Rapelay, even if they claim it's for the gameplay, I want nothing to do with them. The same goes for hatred.
CJ from San Andreas
Luis from Ballad of Gay Tony
Huang Lee from Chinatown Wars
Vic from Vice City Stories
Franklin from GTA 5
I can understand that point of view to a degree, it's just my standard is to not only look at the kind of games they are playing and also how they tend to act in real life. I do admit though, I wouldn't really know how to feel about someone who thinks that Rapelay is a good game or even remotely entertaining, but I would at least listen to them first. My main issue with Hatred is that it seem like it's an entirely pointless "political" statement when games are 90% based solely on violent interaction as it is, which makes it more stupid than edgy and that the developers have massively concerning ties to right wing neo-NAZI movements in Europe.
There are a lot of things I like that some of my friends would have easily "unfriended" me over if they didn't decide to talk to me about. At University some of my friends were quite fundamentalist Christians and were really worried about the fact I ran DnD (yes, this is still an issue for some groups). When they were formally invited to a game by me and could actually see how it worked and what it was about, well, they're now life long converts to playing DnD and even after I moved on still do it. Of course DnD is nowhere near as offensive as Rapelay/Hatred (well, depending on your DM I guess) and the TT equivalent would be garbage like FATAL (which has detailed rules for genitalia and raping people). I admit, someone who thinks FATAL is great is more than likely got some very weird ideas but I would at least see what it was. If it was all the rules on rape in FATAL they liked and then I get some tirade about how women were asking for it IRL etc, yeah, I run the other way from that guy as fast as possible.
Games in many ways encourage and reward sociopathic behavior, such as GTA 5 and that game as has been argued in the thread, is a lot closer to Hatred than it is to say, Journey. The difference is that GTA 5 has a ton of merit outside of "Brutally murder NPCs who are begging for their lives", including an incredibly strong narrative, excellent side missions, sometimes cutting satire (and sometimes moments where they utterly fail, like their shots at trans people and entire lack of decent female characters) and just the sheer joy of exploration the world they have made offers. Again, I don't like Hatred and I support Steam telling them to screw of if they want, but I'm not about to unfriend anyone who owns it just for the sake of them owning it. Some people like to own things like Hatred and Ashes Cricket 2013 simply because owning things that are terrible, playing them and understanding them is how you learn to critique them.
Simply owning something does not tell you they are a terrible person or that they endorse every view of that piece of content. For example, I own Dragons Crown (free on PS+) and I enjoyed it for what it is: But the terrible depiction of women in the game is not endorsed by me simply by means of ownership.