Insane Difficulty: #GamerGate—A long-time-coming wake up call? - Insane Difficulty

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Pretty much. It's somewhere between circlejerk and easy-access approve/disapprove without having to post saying "excellent job, insightful post" or "you misunderstood everything I said you stupid jerk, go away".

And I loves me xkcd references.

As for agenda's... a little subjective but I usually give people the benefit of the doubt; heinlein's razor. Sometimes they're just ignorant rather than malicious. If you pigeonhole a character into a certain gender (male) with certain qualities (heterosexuality, hypermasculinity), it's sometimes legit because that's his character. You're not being sexist or homophobic or whatever. And sometimes you do it because that's the formula that's worked in the past and CHANGE BAD. Aaaaand sometimes you do it because that's what "men are supposed to do/be, gays/girls are disgusting and I refuse to include them in my gem of a game", which is when you're a preachy agenda pusher and deserve no compensation for your shitty product.

Either way, in the current era small game devs have amazing access to gamers via smartphone apps, steam/humble bundle, Xbox arcade, PSN, and such. Now is the perfect time to not be reliant on someone else to perpetuate the standard but rather to generate your own content that challenges the standard. There's no need to tear down the other guy. (and yet, people are still wanting to on both sides. Oh well.)

Gone Home, for example, is at best a very mediocre game. The puzzles are simple, the progression is linear, the graphics are average, there's no character interaction -- its just a fancy way to tell a story about a sister who's run off with her gay lover. Blech.

Quote

These people need to be torn down. What you never played Call of Duty 2? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and nothing is the last thing I aim to do. To be fair I don't really think anyone is evil here. I just really like freedom, and at the very least they need to meet some resistance--even if it means giving them "ptsd."

"these people" can refer to about 6 different camps, if you're referring to my post. Who's they? Can you expand, please?

And did you really just attribute an idiom that's been around for more than a century to cowadoodie 2? :\

philsov, on 01 October 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

I could add in an old man rant about today's kids, but nah.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Fair enough, I'll agree that once somebody starts maxing their capabilities, there probably is going to be one who is better than another. I wasn't thinking of that scenario because it's not really applicable here; people playing follow the leader without having a clue haven't started maxing their capabilities.

People who are okay with being mindless aren't hitting their boundaries when making decisions, and could be making a worse decision on whether to follow somebody (or who to follow) than they would have if they had tried to learn something. Who knows, sometimes people who don't know their own capabilities may turn out to be better than those they are following.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

I tend to think of agendas as being hidden goals by default, not just things that people want (that may not technically be correct, but that's how I was thinking of it there). If somebody is doing something to help somebody else, sometimes they really are just doing it for the sake of helping somebody else, just as they said. In that case they are really just doing it because they feel it is "right". Like being bald, right/wrong are vague concepts in terms of where the lines are drawn, but they exist.

But yeah, everybody wants things, that much is true, and not a bad thing. Sometimes people do things that aren't in their "best interests" though, if it will benefit others. Yes, some people really do use right/wrong simply as a means to an end to facilitate whatever their agenda is, but that's not a generalization that can be made for everybody.

Quote

It was a joke man. If I'd said it straight out I assumed you'd say "oh look who played of Call of Duty." But I personally oppose western feminists.

Quote

Dunno, but I'm not going to expect that much from regular people. And what's wrong with following a good leader? Doing so isn't necessarily mindless.

Quote

Then helping someone else is on the agenda. We obviously just see the word differently. As for right and wrong it's really up to the people.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

I'm saying that following leaders mindlessly is bad, not that following leaders is mindless.

I had been saying for years that this was a big issue and was one of the leading reasons why I started my own website. I didn't want to just sit around and 'wait" for someone else to fix the problem I just got up and did something. This is the exact problem i have with most of these "politically" correct spewers who want to change everything to fit them.

I have seen so many articles talking about make Link a girl because X person can't identify with Link. However no one is asking for a Zelda game that well FOCUSES on Zelda. Here we have a perfectly establish female lead who can basically be anything that she wants and has filled so many roles in the series yet none of the people who beg for grill Link have thought of having Zelda as the central character.

The next thing that irks me but ties into what I just said is that no one wants to do anything about the "issue" theirself. I see countless people bitching no strong female leads. NEWS flash people a Male will NEVER truly know what it is like to be a women like how a naturally born women will which is why even if she is written well it still seems faked. If you want a strong female lead you may want to get off your asses ladies and make one. I for years have found it odd that the industry fails to portray people of darker skin right most of the time even their basic build looks "inhuman" but I decided rather than complain about it for years to randoms on the net I would start by creating characters like that.

This is the biggest problem with most of the loudest speakers is that they want someone else to do it and then they will sit back and say look what I did. You did jack shit buddy besides bitch on the net at random people. It blows my mind how so few people actually can't be bothered to actually work to accomplish something.

Also yes I support #GamerGate but I don't agree with the radicals of either side and just want gaming media that is better for the consumer that doesn't "collude" with each other to promote crap games. #endrant

Looks like this thread blew up a little bit since I went to bed.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

You got downvoted because you decided it was a good idea to make a personal assumption about someone you know nothing about on an issue you know nothing about. That is not constructive to the larger discussion at all. That is why the rep system exists, to promote good posting and shun shitty posting.

I would have done the exact same thing to Archael, philsov, or anyone else had they done the same thing.

Lockirby2, on 01 October 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

Pretty much exactly what I was talking about,

Lockirby2, on 01 October 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

That is exactly what I mean when I use the word "agenda" in this context.

Vanish Mantle, on 01 October 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Agree completely.

Oh well. Suppose I can't win. Whatever Advent said then.

And I gotta apologize Advent. My bad habits are catching up to me.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Apology accepted. It happens.

I'm not really mad about it anymore anyways.

Quote

Well I've always made a point to find people to disagree with on the internet. That and giving my avatar a smug face makes me act a little more smug than normally. It's like I'm trying to fit the picture or something. Originally I probably would have used smug rather than snug but I thought I might act a bit too much like an asshole if I did something like that, and I love taking naps soooooo..... Anyway it certainly happened last time I put smug in my name.

I really need to be nicer to people. Hell you even bothered to listen to me when I was being a little bitch, and I still appreciate that.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Misaka is definitely a smug little thing. Perhaps you need to be an Electromaster to fit the image.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Mental illness strikes a real chord with me. It's easy for me to see how someone's views have been affected by theirs from all the introspection and mental policing I've done and still do on myself daily to separate my own thoughts from my those blown out of proportion by my illness.

It's hard not to empathize, so no problem.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

I've argued with people who were making the point I believe in, just to argue. And me arguing tends to look my me posting, ie saying fuck every few sentences. What I don't do, is say things that are generalizations. If I have a problem (or are pretending to) with some one, I'll call them out specifically. I won't say something like "I hate feminists" because feminist is an extremely general term. Hell, I probably fall into some category of feminism, and my feelings on gender issues is "Man, is fucking awful how women are treated. But, I benefit from it, so I'm not going to get up in arms over it." (Yes, I am a slightly terrible person. I just don't give enough of a shit to improve my own life, let alone any one else's.)

There is a difference between being argumentative (which I'll never - someone for, I'm more likely to + even if they disagree with me) and being a stereotyping fucktard (which I will minus).

Quote

I actually tend to stereotype for the sake of gathering information, but I tend to got a little too far. That said I think women in the west are treated really well, but I suppose we'll always disagree on that.

Actually I've changed my mind. I don't think generalizations should just be tossed in the can either, but I don't think I deserve a minus purely for being personally against feminists. We have to keep in mind that a generalization doesn't include everyone. In fact I think it's safe to say people like myself can be generalized as well. I fit quite a few stereotypes. That's not to say that people aren't individuals but anyone that shares a common trait with someone else can be generalized. That is however, no excuse for bigotry, but for the sake of argument I don't think generalizations should be tossed aside. They're especially useful when arguing politics--especially when it comes to the right and left. Naturally no one assumes people are talking about every single individual on either side. There are good and bad feminists, but I'm specifically against the bad, however the good supporting them is something I am also against. As far as good feminists go she is my go to.

https://www.youtube....h?v=9MxqSwzFy5w

You were never downvoted by anyone in this thread except for me. And you were downvoted for this one comment:

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Which you have since apologized for. You have not, at any point in this thread, been downvoted for anything related to sexism.

Quote

Feminists tend to be above any kind of criticism anywhere but the most cynical parts of the internet. I'm planning ahead.

snugrailgun, on 01 October 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

You won't find any radfems here.