Jump to content

Shadowe

Contributors
  • Posts

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shadowe

  1. Timaeus do you whip out a stack of papers or laptop and google scholar every time you have a conversation with someone about something and mention any current event relevant to that conversation?
  2. If I split a single article, item, or tangible event into twenty links does that make it twenty citations or does it make it just one? CHx cited a number of seperate tweets made in a running string as part of a single event within a very short time period. I think more than anything else you've said so far trying to play that off as the "unusual scope" of "only two sentences" goes to show what I would interpret to be a disingenuous intent, for someone so obsessively concerned with semantics and form you've just profoundly misrepresented something. By your standards you may as well split up this post into one sentence per quote and claim you're quoting as many posts as there are sentences. You keep using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. I cited sources. CHx chose to take citation to the level of spoonfeeding and handholding. And you've now veered into the complete silliness of trying to represent taking a citation and viewing the cited material as "doing light (or heavy) research" for someone else. By your standards it's impossible to ever not do "light (or heavy) research" for someone else. The sheer absurdity of that speaks for itself. You are right about getting back on topic though, we're getting bogged down in different academic schools of thought about citations rather than substantive issues here. Feel free to PM me if you care enough to keep going on that otherwise I think we're both going to just go in circles over metadiscussion. The FTC just issued updated policies on affiliate linking and advertisements in direct response to gamergate supporters' lobbying, so far Gawker's been going back and retroactively adding Affiliate Disclosures to at least some of their articles.
  3. Since you like fallacies you should consider the fallacy of the Straw Man, which you've just given a great example of. I said "mentioning the ACA", not citing a specific paragraph. If I were to point out the ACA by name as one of Obama Administrations major legislative acts and a major legislative act pertaining to healthcare that is a sufficient citation. What you've just come up with about 11000 page documents is a straw man. As is... ...your thorough and well written attack on points I never actually made. I did not, at any point, say it was someone else's job to support my argument. What I said was it's someone else's job to actually take a citation and go procure and read the material cited. To what lengths each person is expected to go in this situation depends on the context. In a thread specifically about a specific topic which is itself an ongoing current event citing major relevant aspects of that ongoing event by specifically naming them is reasonable. If you were to tell me "X major thing happened to Y person yesterday morning" it would be my duty to take that citation and procure the material it cites. Now you seem to be having extreme difficulty responding to what I actually said. Perhaps you're being disingenuous, or perhaps you simply can't understand me. In either case I will restate the point I ACTUALLY made for you on the chance you are posting in good faith: I was specifically referring to a dishonest tactic of making increasingly unreasonable demands under the guise of asking for "citations" and then, having had everything exhaustively spoon fed to them and every hoop jumped through, the demander declaring sources or citations unacceptable by fiat because they disagree with the information presented or who is presenting it. To rephrase it in a third way: It is increasingly common for people to make bad faith demands for "citations" which are in fact nothing more than a means of attempting to exhaust someone by forcing them to comply with increasingly arbitrary and difficult demands. First references to something by name are dismissed as insufficient, then direct references to content are insufficient, then direct links are either insufficient or dismissed. If not dismissed and someone goes to the trouble of reformatting and representing the excerpted information it is finally dismissed as invalid due to arbitrary reasons. I wasn't aware there was such a short half-life on racist statements. Regardless of such a half-life however I would argue that her recent spearheading of a group of people who have gone out of their way to target minorities and women for everything from racial slurs to large scale harassment and so on is proof enough her views haven't changed much. You realise that's the whole point, right? The sheer level hate and bigotry coming from GJP members and those supporting them is so great, the rhetoric so dehumanizing and inflammatory, that people have been incited to outright violence just from reading it. I'm Jewish mate, I've lived with racial violence before. I've watched as people spread lies that my people were behind the September 11th attacks, I've watched the hate grow, I've had to fight for my life when someone finally got pushed over the edge and came for me. The underlying theme of all blood libel is that someone tells incredibly inflammatory lies, usually involving blaming us for some local tragedy, and stirs up a mob to violence. I have seen this before. I have lived this before.
  4. Even in the top levels of academia there are limits to what is reasonable expected to be cited, and even then a citation does not hold your hand to the point of spoonfeeding you... you're given the name of the particular journal article and you are expected to do your diligence in actually procuring and reading it. What you are arguing right now is the equivalent of claiming, in a thread specifically discussing the debate on recent healthcare reform in the US, that mentioning the Affordable Care Act by name is not a valid citation. A citation is a reference. It's YOUR job to go and check out that reference when it's given. There needs to be a new informal fallacy named for the recent trend in disingenuously demanding ever more exhaustive and unreasonable efforts under the guise of "citations" before finally terminating them with the "that source disagrees with me therefore it's not credible" line.
  5. Leigh Alexander's repeated racist tweets are a matter of public record, as is Steve Sawyer (Revenuemage) getting beaten by a violent mob and forced into homelessness because they found out he supported gamergate. So just to be clear do you also have a problem with the people screaming racial slurs at women and minority gamergate supporters, calling them klansmen, worse than ISIS, and the like or is this a double standard? Also metaphors are not ad hominem, nor is questioning whether someone is just a con artist or not after they bilk people for over $150,000 and then have a handful of largely inaccurate, misleading, and repeatedly plagiarized videos to show for it. As to motivations that's an oversimplification. Factors like this are VERY relevant when someone is specifically (and almost totally) relying on holding themselves up as a moral crusader who should be viewed as a pillar of justice and moral righteousness. That person's history of plagiarism, theft, and dishonesty are all directly tangible issues in cases where they're creating a cult of personality through the manipulative use of social justice rhetoric. Anita/McIntosh have repeatedly shown they believe videogames make people both violent and misogynist and want to get rid of them as well. The only difference is where Jack Thompson sought to get the government to do it Anita/McIntosh and her ilk are relying on blacklisting, yellow journalism, and vicious mobs to get it done. The argument that she's "not a journalist" is right up there with the constant shell game of these individuals claiming alternatively to be bloggers or journalists depending on whichever is more convenient at that moment. As far as "attacking women" goes that's ironically a statement born of misogyny. It's been repeatedly statistically disproven, and with gaming journalists being overwhelmingly white males what you're actually doing is paternalistically demanding that women simply be off limits. I find it ironic you present yourself as caring about women given the obscenely disproportionate number and severity of attacks inflicted on women (and minorities) supporting gamergate. The situation is so absurdly lopsided as to be comical if it weren't so terrifyingly similar to how blood libel works. Calling for an advertiser boycott IS the public sphere acting, and is a tactic which has been repeatedly publicly supported by those purporting to be on the side of "feminism" and "social justice". But potential double standards aside if you really want to talk about chilling effects and disproportionality lets talk about a handful of individuals that own and operate those websites using them as tools to carry out blacklisting and bullying, as confirmed through the leaked GJP emails. Lets talk about a handful of individuals leveraging such disproportionate institutional power that they can make or break entire careers through racketeering and collusion.
  6. Since the last time I posted in this thread a black man was beaten by a violent mob and forced to flee his own home, someone was threatened by a literal domestic terrorist on a watchlist for downloading pipebomb schematics, and two people were almost murdered by SWATting. That is in addition to the now thirty plus people who have not only been doxed but also had their bank accounts hacked, income held up by fraud, utilities turned off, multiple people have lost their jobs, and gotten knives, syringes full of god knows what, and dead animals sent to them in the mail. All of which has been encouraged and condoned by leading figures in gaming journalism. And you want to try to play the "I'm afraid" card? People have lost their jobs to racist harassment campaigns and even been beaten and driven into homelessness because of the smear campaign spearheaded by a blatant racist that just so happens to have publicly called for exactly this kind of violence against black men before. No, I'm not buying it. It's cheap emotional manipulation. Sarkeesian's a former "handwriting for success" saleswoman, she's just a classic seminar scammer that was picked up to be a vaguely ethnic pretty face. Jonathan McIntosh is the actual writer feeding her all of her material and as far as anyone can tell he's a trust fund kid that's spent his life after highschool traveling from one "revolution" to the next. I read a great quote online about Sarkeesian/McIntosh versus Jack Thompson: ""The relationship between Thompson and Saarkesian is that of David Icke and Bilderberg Anti-Semites. David Icke accuses various royal families, financial leaders, state heads, etc, of being lizard people. So do Bilderberg Anti-Semites. The latter are using the lizard accusations as a screen, code or metaphor for the old "Jews running the world" narrative. The former genuinely believes his targets are lizards. I would want neither in my living room." While McIntosh may well believe his own nonsense, at least until he finds his next fad, I'm pretty sure Sarkeesian is mostly in it for the money. I'd recommend feminists like Aayan Hirsi Ali but her entire opinion about things like videogames and scientist's shirts can be summed up in her recent statement that it's "trivial bullshit" being obsessed over by "idiotic women". Then again maybe that kind of swift kick to the head is what people need to realise that this is all just a cheap FUD used to control people via fear and moral panic.
  7. You're a more charitable person than I am if you believe these people are honestly fighting for equality instead of merely using the appearance of such as a political weapon. Then again when you've got something like 30 people (primarily women or minorities) losing jobs, having their bank accounts hacked, income held up by fraudulent reports, and even getting syringes, knives, and dead animals in the mail it would take the zeal of a true believer to stand by the mostly rich white men cheering that on and call it "feminism". I'll call it right now: I don't think the GJP side of this is going to be happy until they've stoked the fires enough for one of their more unhinged followers to murder someone. They've already escalated their rhetoric to the point a 16 year old kid thought being a "good feminist" meant doxing someone and threatening his 7 year old cousin with rape and murder, and when she regretted it later her friends tried beat the hell out of her in her own home. Bell Hooks this shit aint.
  8. You can remove literally every single mention of Zoe, Anita, FemFrequency, feminism, misogyny, and anything close to that from the metrics of the #gamergate hashtag and it barely moves at all. Furthermore merely screaming profanity and slurs at people, accusing one of the most diverse and inclusive groups on the planet of being universally white male unattractive virgin losers, is not being "critical of sexism". Especially when this is done in defense of a woman multiple feminists have pointed out is clearly a domestic abuser, who has in the past lied to start a horrible raid against suicide risk individuals, who tried to kill a feminist game jam, after her gaslighting and emotionally abusive behavior was revealed by her victim. Also these people are NOT speaking out against harassment of women, they've repeatedly condoned everything from rape and death threats to hacking people's bank accounts and sending them knives and syringes in the mail. You're talking about people that see no issue with calling women "house n**" and attacking them as long as they have the "wrong" views. If you really care about how women are treated you're very much on the wrong side of this.
  9. It took 7,000 people to get the SPLC to stop taking money from Cathy Brennan and even after that they still won't classify Gender Identity Watch, an organization that exists only to attack trans* people, as a hate group. Let me repeat that: The SPLC took money from, and continues to give a free pass to, a literal hate organization run by someone convinced that trans* people are a threat to womankind and who has gone so far as to lobby against their basic human rights at the international level. And you seriously think these people have any credibility left. Zoe "prompted" gamergate in the sense that everything from the deplorable wizardchan raid to gaming journalists refusing to report honestly on the attacks against TFYC's game jam and mass censorship of anything to do with her lit a powderkeg that was already there. As for allegedly obsessing over those three womenHard Math simply doesn't support that. Less than 10% of gamergate's tweets have gone to Anita, Zoe, Brianna, Kotaku, Leigh, Grayson, and Totilo combined. Even then 85-90% of the tweets to them were neutral, and Zoe, Anita, and Leigh got the least amount of negative tweets. Compare that to the tweets against gamergate where Leigh, Zoe, Chipman, Chu, and other major figures publicly condone and sometimes even take part in doxxing, filing false police reports, and as of the last day or two escalating to attempted SWATting. If you want misogyny and racism you need look no further than the tweets of people screaming slurs like "house n**" and the something like thirty odd people that have gotten knives and syringes in the mail, had the police sent to their homes, their income or internet cut off by fake reports, and even lost their jobs. Most of them weren't white, weren't cis or straight, or were women. The idea that they're ignoring larger issues is also simply not true. Even the Shadow of Mordor issue had the whistle blown by gamergate supporters and was a significant issue of discussion. Asking why gamergate isn't doing more about AAA companies right now is, basically, asking why they aren't doing gaming journalists' jobs for them even as said journalists obstruct every attempt at doing so. Which segues into the rest of your post... You make two major claims here that are both patently untrue: 1. Gamergate did not "appeal to journalists reasonably" and 2. Gamergate did not create/promote sites with better policies First off Journalists started this by publishing profanity filled screeds against "pissbabies" "obtuse shit slingers" and calling everyone ugly sexless white men while even reddit deleted over 25 THOUSAND posts on the subject. People TRIED to be reasonable, gamergate happened specifically because journalists refused that. The leak of the JournoList, which even Jimmy Wales himself has said is definitive proof of many of gamergate's claims, gives you a pretty good idea of why. Your second point is also objectively wrong. One of the very first things Gamergate did was promote or create alternate media sources with better ethics policies. You can't swing a cat in KotakuInAction or the hastag without someone linking you to multiple websites. They've even given a lot of respect to ChristCenteredGaming for showing exactly how you can review a game professionally and according to cultural/moral issues. I'll be honest Zircon I don't actually believe you spent any time on KotakuInAction. There's simply no way you could have missed this stuff unless you were deliberately trying to avoid it.
  10. This would not be a good thing. Sonic Rush was easily as bad as Sonic Heroes. Where the latter was bad because of bugs and a horrible basic concept, the former was terrible because the whole game just constantly forced you to either go at mario speeds or play through twice to memorize all the random "HAHA GOTCHA" moments they threw in. I was afraid of getting on a spring because I knew it had a 50% chance of launching me at Mach Fuck straight into a baddie that wasn't visible and I couldn't avoid.
  11. Only if he can throw five people into the screen. Fuck that level. I hate it so much.
  12. Honestly I don't care if they go and cannibalize the original stuff and just run it through HQ4x as long as they don't go New-SMB on me and give me something with the shittiest most unreliable "Meh, Close Enough" clipping and hit detection ever. ^^^ That and if they follow after Sonic Rush and make the whole game a lot of "HAH GOTCHA" kills you need to memorize to survive and turn half the levels into gimmicky X-over-bottomless-death shite I'll be dissapointed. Look through all four classic sonic games and bottomless death pits are used quite sparingly compared to being the majority of a level as they are in the newer sonic games.
  13. Personally I'm a heretic, Dark Forces 2 was the last good starwars FPS.
  14. Found the site in 02 thanks to tracking down my first OCR ever, Jivemaster's Tight Finale. Registered a bit later in 2003 and I've been here since.
  15. A lot of the sounds from Quake, especially the chainsaw and Ogre's player-spotted noise, are actually quite popular stock sounds for horror themed stuff around here in florida. So periodically I get a "SHIT OGRE" feeling when I go past tourist traps.
  16. I'm glad you put the "almost" in there because I still think subterrania beat Sonic to hell in pretty much every category except level size/length when it comes to technical impressiveness.
  17. Have you ever seen kids argue? They'll spend as long as you let them just going "Yes you did-No i didn't" back and forth. Imagine that single minded now-its-personal zealotry being brought up against a videogame.
  18. I think it's time for (LAoS'?) Incredible Internet Videos thread to return.
  19. The original super mario bros 1 and 3. All-stars just doesn't cut it, the music's not as good and the levels just don't have the same feel.
  20. Mruphy's law: It is astronomically more likely that when pointing out grammar/spelling mistakes in someone's post or otherwise insulting their intelligence that you will make some of your own. I've already said I'm cool with a movie whose main selling points are Megan Fox and giant robots beating the hell out of each other. That being said, I still want the third one to have intelligent plot and motherfucking UNICRON. And this time lets not go fantastic 4 and make it an evil cloud (oh no! Quick, someone get a desk fan). When I say Unicron I mean "that's no moon" with freakin tusks trying to eat the planet Unicron.
  21. Dude for $100 you can get sennheiser HD555s or ATH-AD700s both of which are open. ATH-A700s are the closed version. Its not just noise leakage btw, open headphones don't fatigue the ear as much for lack of air circulation and don't have quite the emphasis on bass but better overall balance. [edit] Who changed the sonic avatar? He's supposed to have green eyes in the older games.
  22. Yes. This. And they better not pull a Fantastic Four and castrate unicron.
  23. It's probably the chairs thing. If you're really thin/bony like me then sitting on unpadded chairs will press in places that can cause muscle fatigue.
  24. Anyone else get body horror dreams, or at least truly feel what they dreamed even when waking up? I mentioned lovecraftian horrors on Page 2, specifically I meant aside from seeing things that can only exist in dreams (impossible biology etc) I also get tortured in them. I mean it feels like a low blow that aside from the waking up in a cold and terrified sweat thing AND actually still feeling the second degree burn from getting your arm scalded while you were asleep.
  25. Sleep is not pleasant. Which leads to my wierd sleep problems. 1. Pavlovian nightmare response. It tends to take me a long and uncomfortable time to fall asleep and once I AM asleep it means seeing, and vividly feeling, everything from lovecraftian horrors to Unpleasant Memories. I'll automatically try to avoid going to sleep until I'm SURE that I'll be falling under very quickly and just being done with it. 2. It seems my body is utterly convinced that the day is ~28 hours long instead of 24 and i'm in a different timezone. I naturally tend to go to sleep around 5am and get up around 1-2pm and then the schedule slowly rotates around the clock because I'll try to be awake and sleep longer than 24 hour cycles. 3. Wonky sleep appetites. If I get up at noon to 2pm I'm fine until I go to sleep around 4-6am, if I try to get up at ANY normal daytime time and stay awake during daylight I'll be falling down tired from almost 2-4pm until sundown. Overall I'd say that No1 is the biggest problem because if I didn't utterly despise the possibility of dreaming so much I'd probably be more willing to deal with the other two.
×
×
  • Create New...