Jimquisition: Toxic

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: It was there! You wrote it!

Meh whatever. I get the "stop being unreasonable dicks to people", I'm not disagreeing with that idea Jim. My problem is no matter how accurate and mature anger is focused on a company doing bad things, it still means fuck all if people keep on giving them their money. We can vote EA worst company of the year all we want, but what's really going to get their attention, bad publicity that we all know they have dump trucks full of money to spin with their own public relations people, or a big empty space where those huge piles of money coming in used to be? Case in point, the "Cupcake Incident".

As I've said before many of we gamers act like lemmings with credit cards and continually buy into the hype and buy any old shit mainly out of fear of missing out on something cool, or just because we are looking for our next fix to chase away boredom. Usually to our own mass disappointment. Maybe if we tried addressing that vicious cycle we could nip quite a lot of this toxic negativity in the bud.

Spoiler: It's all there! You saw it!

A fair point.
Jim and others have said so as well. We can't just ask that the Publishers and Developers change.
We have to as well.

Don't know what you mean by bringing up the Cupcakes. Everyone expresses anger differently, but I'm not sure many people give out cupcakes when their mad.
Or do you mean that it was ineffective?

Spoiler: Third verse, same as the first.

Also I'm very sick of seeing the double standard when it comes to who can criticize what. You seem to feel it's okay to rage at Cooper Lawrence for "talking made up scare mongering bullshit." But it isn't okay to say the same of Sarkeesian due to some extremist trolling assholes, when she is just as guilty of the same behavior. I say rather than focusing on the extremist death threat assholes, like you and the rest of the gaming press always seem to do, how about for once you try to speak to the sane and rational MAJORITY of game players who would actually listen to what you have to say without trying to gnaw your face off. Because the sooner we stop letting our discussions be motivated by the actions of a minority of idiots, the sooner we can start talking to each other like adults.

Spoiler: Forth verse, same as the second.

Yeah, no.

Spoiler: What Cooper said about the game before she even saw the game.

Spoiler: What Anita said to get the harassment that she got.

In Cooper's case, she said things that weren't true about a game she hadn't played.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/01/26/cooper-lawrence-i-misspoke-about-mass-effect#.UlxWaqgo7wo

In Anita's case, she said she was going to talk about sexist tropes in video games.

These things are not comparable.

The whole cupcake incident was about where angry fans sent Bioware a bunch of cupcakes with A B C on them in protest for not liking the ME3 ending. Bioware turned around and very publicly donated the cupcakes to a charity for disadvantaged children, turning what was a public fan shaming into a PR boon. Now why that annoys me is Bioware, a massively rich company, got praise for giving away something they got entirety for free, and deflected what many felt was truly deserved blame.

Alright. I can see what you're saying. Though, at least a charity got some cupcakes to give to kids.
Plus, you have to admit, if everyone's reaction to being very angry at someone/some people was to seen them cupcakes to show their displeasure. The world would be a nicer place.
[sub][sub]Also, most likely a much fatter place. <.< [/sub][/sub]

Plus, it's not like people stopped being mad at them after that. Heck, some people are still very very very Mad. [sub][sub](<-- Three "verys". Get it!?)[/sub][/sub]

And on Anita Sarkeesian, I'm sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel she is a charlatan who expounds opinion as scientific fact, based on the most tenuous of actual research.

Now I actually agree with the argument that women are under and miss-represented in the gaming culture, but I find her way of going about trying to explain and solve it not only disingenuous but also horribly patronizing towards women.

So while I feel that women do indeed need a voice in the gaming culture, I vehemently disagree Sarkeesian is the one for the job. And thanks to the mental defectives that made threats against her, and the people who happily equate ANYONE who criticizes her methods and viewpoints as one of the aforementioned mental defectives, it is now impossible to have a rational and mature discussion about her, as unless you kiss her sainted ass you are immediately branded hater. Hope that explains my point of view.

Okay. If that is the way ya see it, then that is indeed the way ya see it.

:/ I'm just not seeing where the outrage is coming from.

But then again, I can't see the thing through your eyes.

Spoiler: That is, unless you....

Let me have them.

Come on. I'll give them back...................................Eventually.

;D Have a good day/evening/night/adventure time!

 

[Cecilo]

From the Jedi perspective, perhaps. But then, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.

Except the idea that only a Sith speaks in absolute is an absolute, so a Jedi who told you that must be a Sith or a liar.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I wish I could get angry. I just have an intense loathing, and dissapointment of the status quo, and the supporters of it.

I generally don't direct it towards one person as I recognize there's a hierarchy of unknowns, and there's bright spots here and there. I'll praise the bright spots if I can remember them in all the muck of crap, and the occassion arises.

Heck, even if I did want to aim it at someone, or some particular group, I really can't. What I loathe is too spread out.

 

[UberPubert]

See, you're sounding so much more reasonable now, but you didn't make this argument before. You sounded more like, in your previous quote, that you thought that passion/emotion has no place whatsoever when it came to these sort of affairs. I personally think that logic should dictate HOW you perform, but not WHY you perform. However, "logic" and "grey areas" don't go together the way you use it. Using logic to dictate philosophy and is about believing that there is always a correct answer, but you and I both no that there are situations where there are no correct answers.

Also, if I sound presumptuous it's only because I want to sound like I know what I'm saying. It's the same deal when I write a paper for college. You can't use a bunch of "I thinks" or "Maybes" because that makes you and your paper sound unsure about what you're saying.

If you think I sound more or less reasonable it's because you've misinterpreted what I've said, so to avoid the risk of sounding vague I will repeat myself. Yes, passion and emotion have no place in economics. It is a loose science structured around math and social psychology - and don't let the latter term fool you, it's use is rooted deeply in numerical findings.

The how's and why's of performance get lost when you don't assign them to anything definable. If you asked why I should be angry, I'd give you a reason, and if you asked how I'd go about expressing that, I'd reply with a thoughtful argument that backed up my reasoning. Sure, I was angry, but that's not good enough to persuade someone to my way of thinking nor do I think anger is proof that something is wrong, only a sign that I don't like it and is perhaps worthy of further investigation as to why that is.

Logic and grey areas go to together because, when in doubt, you're supposed to use the former to navigate the latter, not because they're in any way the same but because a morally grey area asks difficult questions that might elicit less than reasonable answers. Sometimes logic is about finding the most agreeable outcome in a no-win scenario.

 

[UberPubert]

You're right, I did misinterpret you, because now you sound much less reasonable than I thought you were. Looks like I've got egg on my face.

Looks to my like we have a Heisenberg situation on hand. Heisenberg created a theory about subatomic particles stating that the more you know about the position of the particle, the less you know its momentum and vice verse. Basically, I'm saying that the more educated you are about the mathematical and sociological principles of economics, the less you're able to do anything good with it because you people like you have the skill to do something but have no real motivation except to make money.

The problem is that you feel you NEED to persuade anyone. If you had a backbone you'd realize you don't need majority approval to do something. Art, passion, and emotion have no place in a purely logical world. That world is one ruled by machines: computers and living calculators. It's not a world for humans, who must think in abstract in order to create fiction. Passion is what makes life worth living. Passion is what makes you feel obligated to convince me, in order to create your vision of a better world one person at a time.

Another fluke in your "logic" is that you think it and grey moral dilemmas can coexist, yet you say that the reason is because it helps make a better decision out of the choices presented to you. Is it a dilemma if there is a choice that is obviously better than the others? Sure, it's not the ideal choice but it is still the choice you think should be made. Best choice=right choice. If there is a right choice then the dilemma is not grey, it is black and white.

Again, you have a very strange way of making assumptions about the way I think, and you seem to keep missing a detail: I don't view the world in black and white, I do feel emotion, and I know others do to. I've yet to claim otherwise. Because I prefer logic does not exclude these things, it only provides what I believe to be a better alternative to going along with these gut feelings, especially when people's gut feelings conflict with one another.

You've also mistaken my desire to persuade people with a need of their approval to do what I think is right. Persuasion is for getting people who disagree with your proposition or are indifferent to do what you say, not to allow you to do it. I would say for instance, if you want to make a video game about something, distribute it how you please and charge what you like for the privileged of playing it (or charge nothing at all!) that is entirely up to you, but, if you'd like to persuade someone to do those things you're going to need a reasonable argument as to why. Sure, you could just rant at them but considering it's probably over the internet they can easily choose to ignore you if you make them angry enough or do what Phil Fish did and retire altogether. You don't need to convince people you're right for reasons other than you're angry, but it sure helps.

Logic and grey moral dilemmas can coexist because while our morals, ethics and feelings don't match up with it, we still recognize that there is a logical answer to be found. As an example: You are the proud parent of two children who you love equally, and you would do anything in the world for them, but terrible circumstances make you choose which one you wish to live, and which one you wish to die. Now, one of the children is perfectly healthy and you have every reason to believe they will live a long and prosperous life, but the other is quite sickly, perhaps they have cancer, and don't have very long to live, regardless of how the current situation pans out. You will choose for the healthy one to live, right? It's not an easy decision to make in the moment, it's in an extreme circumstance, it's not one that anyone should have to make, but if you're trying to find the best possible outcome to this terrible situation, you have to measure the quality of one life over another and find that the healthy child is better off living.

This is where logic usually caters to a majority rule, "needs of the many" and all that.

 

[Erttheking]

You didn't provide any arguments to back up your statements. All you did was insult me and everyone who likes Anita.

And if I've said it before I've said it a thousand times, I think her videos are boring as Hell. But that's the thing, they're just boring. They don't warrant rape threats and the entire internet being up and arms over them.

Also I never got the whole White Knight being an insult thing.

White Knight. Its a stereotype that harms both men and women.

White Knighting is the kind of behavior of males to automatically come to the defense of any women who is being attacked. Its bad for women because the knight assumes that the women being attacked needs his help. Its bad for men because the knights type of behavior is expected from men in general. But it term's correct use is rather difficult, since its not all that common of a behavior on the Internet, most people come to other people's defense out of shared philosophy rather then some kind of chivalrous drive.

At least thats what I understand of it, not sure how correct this all is.

You can always just google it.

Oh no I understand what it means, I'm just not convinced it should really be considered an insult or is even that good of an insult. Frankly as insults go it's almost like saying "you're a Communist!" it's more or less saying "You have a view that I disagree with and you should be ashamed of that!"

 

[Erttheking]

Hang on! Hang on!

What we saw was people pouring toxic on a woman who in the end totally ended up deserving it.

No, no no no no no no no no no no no. I couldn't get any further in your post after that.

And this is the problem with discussion about this topic, you ain't even listening

Anita deserved rape threats?

Nope. No one deserves rape threats, but you know what the difference between her rape threats and everyone elses rape threats are? She used those threats to gain money. While other people ignored them because it's the internet.

She deserved to have games made about her being punched in the face?

Does Obama deserve a game about him getting punched in the face? How about George Bush? Because those games are out there.

You can't win against the White Knights and the Feminists.

None of them listen to what you say or will take your words way out of context.

Right now I am the guy that says rape threats are 100% okay because I referred to the toxic response in general and did not list the specific toxic replies I approved of and disapproved of. It's best to strawman the other's position with extreme hyperbole than to admit to the fact you donated money to fund a glorified clip show which was ripped from the internet for about 50%.

It's hard to admit the fact that you basically donated money to someone so they could mismanage it into random game shopping, barely in depth commentary and gross misrepresentation of the games featured in the show which on top of that consist of stolen footage (because that's what it is when you don't credit people). Now we just wait for the first guy who says I am so sexist because I mentioned she wasted the money on shopping and that is a female stereotype, just wait someone will claim that.

The positive side of this Sarkeesian debacle though it that more intelligent people came out of the woodworks to tear her videos to pieces. It's kind of like the Prequels to me, the reviews and replies are worth the production of the crappy original material.

I didn't strawman your argument, you said that she totally deserved what happened to her. If you didn't include rape threats with that, you should have specificed, because there was no evidence against you supporting them, and while there wasn't much to say that you DID there was more to suggest that you did than you didn't, so frankly what was I supposed to think? Also I find it kind of interesting that you claimed I used a strawman argument and then proceeded to make massive generalizations about feminists and "white knights". And apparently I'm the latter and I should be ashamed...for some reason.

That would be an interesting argument against me if I had spent even a dime on her videos. I did not though, so I don't see what that has to do with me. Also I won't say that that is sexist. I will just say *Citation needed.

You know, you don't really come off as very sympathetic when you basically just said that everyone who disagreed with you was a moron. Frankly I don't even like her videos, the sheer amount of hate towards her just feels unjustified towards me.

 

[schrodinger]

I was so waiting for Jim to play "Toxic" somewhere in the video.
Perfect ending

I believe the angry, gelatinous blob of a online gaming community does have its place in the industry. For example, they got to change that thing of an ending for Mass Effect 3 and got it to be tolerable. Another would be the former announcement of where Mad Max wasn't going to be Australian; the fuck was that. Eventually the community got them to change back to Australian, but who knows what that'll sound like or if its even in Australia. Th blob of a community has it merits even if those merits can be down right hateful.

 

[daxterx2005]

That brittany spears bit at the end had me rolling.

 

[kwagamon]

That con footage tells me either we are indulging Jim Sterling too much, OR we need to indulge him more to the point where he becomes a gaming messiah capable of delivering some real wrath unto the publishers.

Probably too much. Probably.

 

[UberPubert]

Dude, I never ever said that you couldn't feel emotions or passion. You're human, and to be human is to er (and emotions and all that). But you clearly don't think being "human" is ideal, whether you knew it or not. Because you idealize logic--and logic means that there is always a right answer--it means you wish to be "higher" than human. Remember, there is what people say they think and what they really think. What you think you think might not be true. Yes, it sounds like I'm presumptuous but that's because I think you don't really believe what you're saying.

BA! You're second paragraph makes no sense! The only reason to debate someone is to get them do something for you? By that logic it that means YOU'RE trying to make ME do something you, or you at least expect something out of this. Well, you're not. You won't get me to do anything for you even if you do manage do persuade me. It sounds like you expect something every time you win an argument. Sorry, but the most I might give you is an internet cookie. That's like me saying that I believe if I win this internet debate I expect you to go spread my word. I don't. I don't expect you to do anything.

No, Logic and grey cannot co-exist. As long you think that one answer is superior then that makes that answer the correct answer. "Grey" does not mean that the decision is hard or unpleasant. It means that there is a right and wrong answer. Right and wrong is black and white. That's why I believe you believe in a Black and White world, not a grey one.

I think humanity entails more than feeling emotion, and "to be human is to err" is why I'd like to use a higher method of thinking. When humans err it is usually on the side irrationality, when malice, jealousy, and paranoia take hold. When we look back on terrible things people did we realize what they did is wrong because we see they were being unreasonable, because the information they operated on was faulty, even though they might swear they were right. Without logic it's just their word against yours, the rule of moral relativity, where no one's wrong because from their unique perspective they're right. But civilization as we know it cannot exist if we do not reach a common ground and speak on matters in a reasonable fashion.

Well I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, I'm only explaining my position, as you keep misunderstanding it. I have no objective to "win" and have no real fear of "losing" because we're no longer arguing about the topic at hand (which I've already made my point on elsewhere).

In my example I only mean to demonstrate that by all moral, ethical, emotional means the decision to choose one beloved child over another is impossible. In a loving parent's eyes both children are equal. It is only when the value of one child's life over another expressed as a mathematical equation (X>Y) is the only measure left to judge it by and is the core principle of logic. Logic does, yes, present things as black and white, but obviously not everyone uses logic, so the world remains grey.

 

[timeformime]

Jim is more or less right, at least for those who are used to being angry or getting outraged at things. If you have anger and you can't not be angry, by all means, harness it and direct it away from those who don't need or deserve it.

Me, I don't get it. I don't think actual anger is ever constructive, because life is too damn short. A lot of what Jim does sounds angry, but is really just humorous, sensible indignation, so maybe he sees his indignation as anger, and it's just an issue of semantics. And different personalities, to be sure.

So yeah, don't feel like you need anger if you don't have it, but if you do, handle with care. Or if you're angry more than you're not, you could try being happy instead. Too much cortisol wreaks serious havoc on your brain. Me, I just like to play good games and talk about them with people on the internet sometimes, and I'm often puzzled by how angry other people are about stuff they could so easily brush off, and I know many others feel the same way. I'm almost done with Tomb Raider on Steam, which I got for just 10 bucks on Amazon, and it's pretty sweet. I hope the ending is cool.

 

[SamTheNewb]

Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

 

[timeformime]

Hate and criticism are two different things. Hate is what you feel when something isn't to your taste and is a more immediate reaction, criticism, is how you reflect and explain your hate and is more of a gradual conclusion. Too much hate, and not enough criticism makes for a muddled, ill aimed, poop cannon of a message.

Reducing toxicity isn't about becoming so jaded that we don't care. It is about sorting through the hate and formulating proper criticisms from it.

The question isn't if we have too much hate and toxicity, the question is, why can't people come to properly formulate their criticisms out of their hate. Perhaps it is because we feel like we need to have the community come to a consensus about their hate, when in all honesty everybody will have different points of criticism for the same thing. Or perhaps people are too lazy to rationalize their hate. Or perhaps there is simply too much noise on the internet to allow the rationalized criticisms to show up and get traction on the internet.

For as irrational a medium as the internet, that was an incredibly rational argument. You're right, there isn't much proper criticism around these parts.

Laziness probably is a big part of it.

 

[SashaGris]

I really don't think people are getting more angry, for starters. In second place, people saying that anger should be directed, controlled, employed in some sense or capacity must be saints who have never been enraged.

Now, for some clarification: People were just as angry some years ago, and then 40 years ago, or a hundred. The real issue, I think, is technology and this era of instant communication we live in. People were just as angry and numerous in relative terms before our times, we just never heard of it. If you were playing a game and became enraged at it, you would go to your desk and start writing an angry letter. When you were about half done, your anger would have probably ebbed, and you would be able to rationalize the issue at least a bit more than before.

That can't be done anymore, there's no cool down period. You get enraged, and rage blinds people, there's no directing or doing anything with it except venting it, and the venting is right there at your fingertips. The game makes you angry, you basically alt-tab and go to a forum, your blog, twitter, tumblr, reddit, and who knows how many other sites more, and you post your enraged comments in all of them at the same time. Someone is bound to "hear" about your outrage.

Please don't suggest that people control their emotions, specially the "burst" ones like anger, that's just wishful, utopic thinking. Humans have been trying for millennia and we are still at square one. Second, remember what your parents or grandparents have surely told you at least once before. When someone is angry, you ignore them. An angry person doesn't know what he or she is talking about, literally. It's been scientifically proven that anger gives you tunnel vision and it overrides many of the more rational areas of the brain. Let them vent, calm down, and then try to rationalize the issue. Of course that cool down period might be quite long depending on the person.