Jimquisition: Toxic

[n00beffect]

Jim Sterling - the Charlie Chaplin of Video Game conferences. Such a persona he's created for himself, so well-fitted. Also, helps that his show is awesome - loved that performance at the end, mate, really good job - you're a brilliant performer, Mr Sterling.

 

[Spud of Doom]

That was probably the best ending I've seen on jimquisition so far

 

[UberPubert]

*face palm* Have you ever taken a literature course in your life? You have to read into the metaphor! What are the connotations of calluses?! Calluses are that rough bit of skin that forms when you bench press or pluck on strings. It, like shoes, are for protection. So when I say you that "you are too scared to step barefoot in the grass, despite how wonderful it feels." I am saying that you're too afraid of getting hurt by metaphorical snakes to let yourself feel something pleasant. Metaphors and allegories! Hearts can't literally form calluses, so you have to think differently! I'm implying that you're too afraid of emotions, which is represented by a hardened heart. Sorry, but I think you're just blatantly ignorant.

I understand the metaphor but it's still wrong in this situation. Just because I don't want to do something doesn't mean I fear it. Sometimes it's because it's wrong, sometimes it's a matter of self-control, neither of which have anything to do with not wanting to feel emotion. You've mistaken my statement that we should not give ourselves over to emotion as we should exclude it completely. I've only ever argued for not using emotion in science and arguments, because neither of the two are made more credible by emotions.

Yeah, I looked at your source. You have an unhealthy habit of nitpicking only what agrees with you but also leaving out everything that doesn't. Nutrition may be the reason why we're growing taller, but what does that mean in evolutionary terms? Evolution is the adaptation of a being to suit the environment. There are a lot of different reasons why a species or gender changes it's height. One reason might be because on a subconscious level we connotate "tall" with "healthy" and people actively want the healthiest children possible so we choose tall mates.

Unhealthy habit of nitpicking? This is the first time I've cited a source during this conversation, and I didn't choose it because it agreed with me, I chose it because it looked like a legitimate scientific source. Also, your argument for getting tall being evolutionary is flawed. Our society, now more than ever, doesn't really need tall people as much for things like manual labor. We're an information-based society, and we've been heading in this direction since the industrial age as tasks kept becoming less laborious, and the strongest/tallest mates are not always the most successful, so shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker? And if you're implying that we choose tall people because they are healthier, and the article suggests that people are taller because they are healthier, doesn't that mean you essentially agree with it?

"You mean I have to give PROOF in an argument?!" That's what you sound like right now. Telling me I am wrong is not the same as proving that I am wrong. You know what else? It's hypocritical that a person who says they care so much about information would give so little. Also, you clearly said in an early post that, "[You] prefer logic," and in order to say that you have to give some amount of justification, which you never did!

I'm telling you you're wrong in telling me what I think, if you'd like for me to educate you on the benefits of logic, that's another matter entirely. But the gist of philosophical logic as a debate tool is that it's a common ground people can all agree on, like math, because it just makes sense. The ultimate goal of philosophical logic is to put into human language what is universal truth in the laws of reality, almost like a cheat code to cut out bias, fallacies and pathos that clutter so many other debates. I like it because it's the most efficient method, but like I keep saying, it relies on known facts, and without those facts it ceases to function, which is why the most important part in any logical debate is listening and learning.

Am I in a tunnel? Because I swear to god there's an echo in here. You simply haven't given any motive, proof, or reason that doesn't end up eating on itself. You give no quotes. You give no real hypothetical situations that aren't lifeboat representations. (Oh, and by the way I mean that metaphorically.) You're the perfect representation of a person who only sees what they want to see. You're blinding yourself willingly.

Motive, proof or reason for what? Believing what I believe? I don't have any factual evidence to prove to you I believe in logic, it is a decision made entirely in my head, and I can really only give you my word on it. I can sing logic's praises, use it in an argument to deconstruct an opponents proposition or even use it to solve an equation, but if you're calling me a liar there's not much I can do to convince you now can I?

 

[Something Amyss]

This is what I hate with Sarkeesian; her supporters (or the defence of her). Rosa Parks, really? How long have Sarkeesian been in jail? Where do the comparison become more than superficial? Nowhere, that's where. Rosa Parks is only mentioned in a desperate attempt to borrow sympathy. Every argument defending Sarkeesian is about sympathy, like it's a valid argument in itself. Every support relies only on sympathy.

Well, that is not strictly true. I have seen people defend her points, but they also criticized her weak film making.

You know, it's ironic, it was someone against Sarkeesian who compared her to Rosa Parks. I simply flipped the analogy because it works better this way. But then, nobody said she was the equivalent of Rosa Parks, only that her situation in a movement was similar in a specific sense. If you're going to "hate" something, perhaps the irrationality that led you to make this post.

The point remains, but you really didn't want to address it.

That's fine, but don't try and project onto me.

 

[Adultism]

Well I think its kind of sad when an entire server decides to voteban you PERMA out of rage for pocket healing a sniper.

TF2 Reference.

 

[UberPubert]

Semantics, that's all you're arguing my illiterate friend. Semantics. Danger can be anything: snakes, pain, death, losing money, or find yourself in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe you don't fear them like a phobia, but you do avoid them. Again, when I imply something I do something in the assumption that the person I'm writing to is smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. Forgive me because I was obviously wrong.

Again with the insults, are you sure you're my friend? Avoidance is not the same thing as fear. You can certainly avoid something out of fear, but that's far from the only reason. Again, maybe it's wrong, maybe you're avoiding it out of self-control, or if it's something like a topic of conversation you might even avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable or bores you. None of these things have to be about fear, and if you're implying that it is for me that's a baseless accusation you have no proof of and I have continuously denied.

I'm including your source cited but not excluding other examples. I never said that being tall was necessary, but I did say that we can evolve in ways that aren't necessary. Evolution isn't merely about survival. Technology evolves even though we did find with what we had. Also, tall is not in itself desirable, but what it symbolizes is. Purple used to a symbol of wealth because of how expensive the die was. So where purple clothing could get a lot of attention. Today's equivalent would be people with abs and chiseled bodies. It's actually very expensive and time consuming to get that type of body so normally only wealthy people have them.

What other examples? And how is evolution not about survival? If a member of a species dies before they can pass on their traits, then the species will continue on without them, as in their inability to survive means their traits no longer decide how future members of the species will evolve. What does being tall symbolize, if not the symbol of health that the article I posted postulates? Besides that, your hypothesis is incorrect: Lower class people have more children, and due to a lack natural predators or rampant disease, more of them are alive than the children of rich upper class people. Arguing for evolution on that knowledge, again, shouldn't people be getting smaller and weaker?

Who's the presumptuous one now! "...if you'd like for me to educate you..." Do you know what a hypocrite is? A hypocrite is you. Look at all you're previous quotes and see how all over the place you are. You never agree with anything; not even yourself! You used to say Logic should be the best way to conduct yourself. Now you say no philosophy is better than any other. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even know? You never answer questions because you have no answers. You act like you know everything! But Logic is different given any situation and all this I was trying to get you to admit that you just don't have the answer! You loop around and around because being right is more important to you than anything. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but wise man knows himself to be a fool." --William motherfuckin' Shakespeare

You're entire philosophy hinges on it being possible for it to know absolutely everything. But you can't. That's the truth you can't admit to. No one will ever, ever know all the facts. Logic is consequential! Itself is an evolving beast!

No, I said logic is a better way, not the best, and that'd I'd very much like if people used it. I said people choose many different philosophies, not that any of them are correct (though I have stated that some are incorrect). I do have answers, you're just asking the wrong questions and trying to trap me with faulty information. I also find it strange you keep assuming I think so highly of myself when I've said more or less the opposite at every turn. Who I am is unimportant to the central point. I didn't invent logic, I just rather like it - lots of other people do too, in fact, that's one reason it exists in the first place - but I'd never assert that I am flawless for subscribing to it, only that I try to better myself by using it. Also, quoting Shakespeare is an appeal to false authority. He was a poet, actor and playwright, not a philosopher or scientist.

My philosophy doesn't hinge on knowing "absolutely everything", just knowing all the relevant variables in an equation. And yes, because we might not know what all of those are at any given moment, mistakes can be made, but the objective of logic is to find the best possible solution, given the facts that we can assemble. The core philosophy is not an evolving beast, only the arguments it can be used in, as more pertinent information can be brought to light.

There's always something you can do. A person is only as great as their heart lets them be. A coward says otherwise, especially one who governs by facts. You've failed your own test.

Also, you're wrong. A person is a product of the environment. All the morals you hold are because of you're upbringing. You did not simply decide one day that logic should dictate your life: something convinced you. It might've been an event or a person or even a history lesson, but you cannot give yourself sole credit.

Your heart doesn't decide who you are, that would be your brain, or more specifically memories stored in your brain. You have failed at basic human biology.

I wasn't wrong, once again you've just made incorrect assumptions about what my statements might have implied. But okay, I decided logic was the best course of action in arguments when I read it in a book during an Ethics class while we were going over logical fallacies and debate tactics. Logic is the only academically accepted way of conducting an argument, so I thought "why not try applying it to daily life?", since I see the same fallacies being made on non-academic issues. It hasn't failed me in navigating more complicated issues and it's stayed my hand when I might have otherwise acted unwisely.

 

[barbzilla]

Jim, you and I rarely ever disagree, but this is one of those times. I don't feel that rage or spewing venom on anyone is every helpful. Even more so as gamers. We already have a terrible stigma in both the Media and with the general populous due to just such emotions. Yes we tend to be overly emotive and involved in our video games, and rightly so. It is no different than a cinephile having an issue with terrible dialogue, CG, or acting, but we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

First off we need to become much more organized, as a community we are a collective of singular entities with a few groups here and there. If we actually organized ourselves, we would be quite the commanding force in the video game industry. Even if it was just a small community such as the escapist. If we (the escapist members and staff) collectively made a statement about a particular subject or issue we have with an upcoming game from any developer (including EA) and brought it to them as a unified force, I would be almost certain that the change was made (provided it wasn't detrimental to their overhead or business decorum).

So, I say instead of anger, we need unification. Lets create a coalition of gamers to bring about real change in the AAA industry. Lets stop making death threats, as the only serve to run talent out of the industry, and start making well thought out suggestions with the weight of a gaming army behind it. How much good do you think a smattering of angry people would do when compared to such a cohesive force?

 

[UberPubert]

*super face palm* Okay dude, I get it. You lack any ability to think abstractly, and you don't seem to be able to read a person on an emotional level. When I said "friend" I was being sarcastic, obviously. Couldn't you tell by me telling you outright that I don't respect you? Or that I've been generally antagonistic? I swear it's almost sad how much you completely fail. Also, you're arguing semantics yet again.

A philosopher is someone who talks or thinks about philosophy. Anyone, including Shakespeare, can be a philosopher as long as they do this. You're a philosopher, technically if inexperience. So here you are again, changing the meaning of a word to suit your needs. You don't even care do you? You don't know so you make shit up! It was the same for evolution too! I swear to god you must be in 8th or 8th grade!

You thought I was being literal when I talked about the heart?! Do you even understand the concept of symbolism?! Have you ever, once in your life, taken a literature course?! Have you ever thought critically about poem or story?! No, I refuse to believe that you could be so willfully ignorant. I've been speaking in metaphors for the past several quotes, but now you're just being stupid! It's a joke is what it is. You're playing me for a fool and I've let myself get here. What does that say about me? Probably a lot.

Failure, you're a failure at everything. I bet people don't like talking to you if this entire debate is anything to go on. This is how I picture your conversations going.

"That guy sure was an asshole!" remarked some dude scathingly.
"Incorrect, an animal cannot consist entirely of being an anus," says you.

"Jesus Christ, that last M. Night Shyamalan movie was really bad," said your mom.
"My name is not Jesus Christ, mother. Also your opinion was subjective and therefore illogical," says you.

"Drink in the country air," sighs your psychiatrist.
"You cannot drink in air," you remark.

I don't lack the ability to think abstractly, I just don't think it's a relevant tool in an argument. When I called you friend I was only joking. It's not semantics, I'm talking about the actual definitions of words. Fear does not mean avoidance, nor does it mean any of the things I mentioned before, and it's not an insignificant point. You are saying something that is untrue, correct yourself if you must, but as it is written you are wrong.

A philosopher isn't just someone who talks about philosophy, it's someone who studies philosophy, who is knowledgable on the subject and contributes to it with educated opinions. In this sense, yes, I could nearly call myself a philosopher. I won't, but technically that's true, yes. But Shakespeare didn't call himself a philosopher, that's not what he's known for and there's no evidence suggesting he studied it. Just because he might say things that sound philosophical does not make him a good philosopher. I'd even agree with the quote you wrote - though not because Shakespeare made it - but would argue that it does not apply to me, because I do not think myself to be a wise man. I defer judgement to people much wiser than myself, which is why I choose logic in the first place rather than coming up with my own system where I'm always right, because I'm not always right, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I will always try to be and correct myself where needed.

I didn't think you were being literal when you were talking about a heart. That was also a joke. And why is a literature course so imperative to my understanding an argument or conveyance? A literature course is where literature is studied, as in books, and the symbolism therein. That's not helpful in an argument about things not related to books, and your ability to write or allude to symbolism is not a formula for making a salient point on a matter. I'd suggest a composition course instead, where you can learn sentence structure, how to phrase a persuasive essay, and grammar.

And my gosh, one last rant on how you suppose I conduct myself - in my personal life, unrelated to arguments no less! But, in my infinite patience, I will correct you where needed.

I would tell the man "No, that guy isn't an asshole, he was acting like an asshole, and spewing shit."

I would tell my mother "Well, I'm not jesus christ, but I do agree that movie was pretty bad."

I would tell my psychiatrist "The country air is full of bugs or pesticide, and I will suffer neither."

 

[BBboy20]

So basically: less of this http://gamerfury.tumblr.com/ and more of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6itaMKk2W_Y

 

[UberPubert]

Well aren't you just one classy ************. I was being satirical. But I bet you wouldn't know half the words I'm using or how to use them properly. Wow, listen to me. I'm starting to sound like this is some dick measuring contest. However, I think that's what this fight has turned in to. You don't really care about being right. You care about winning this fight. (<---Look at that, a rhyme. A poet am I.)
All we're arguing now is Semantics and it's pathetic as seeing two horny dogs fighting over the rights to mate with a hole in the wall. I brought you down to my level by trying to discredit me. You're making assumptions with wild abandon just like you chastised me for. So I call you, Hypocrite. Pathetic. You lie to yourself and pretend you're something you're not: better than me.

You call this a fight, I call this a simple conversation. As in, me conveying my ideas to you, that's all this ever was. How you've decided to see it is entirely up to you, but I'll still disagree. I'm not interested in winning a fight or being right because that was never my intention in these posts, I was only explaining myself and my position.

I chose my words very carefully, you called them something they were not and derived meaning from them that was incorrect. The distinction between definitions of a word is semantics, but when you choose to ignore the meaning entirely, arguing semantics becomes necessary in order to establish a common language. I haven't come down to your level trying to discredit you because, again, that was never my intention, I was only defending my viewpoint. I'm not making assumptions about anything, I'm just reading your points back to you to show they don't make sense, and your last responses seem to indicate you agree.

Also, sticks and stones may break my bones, etc. I don't care if I'm "better" than you, I don't even know who you are. And you don't know who I am either, much as you like to think otherwise.

 

[UberPubert]

You're so blind you can't even see yourself for what you are. Maybe that's what it's like being a vampire: no reflection. You didn't choose your words carefully. You chose them with all the consideration of child learning how to speak for the first time. Then you had the gall to say I IGNORED the meaning's?! Then, in the ultimate display of irony, you argued the meaning of semantics with me. SEMANTICS! If that isn't irony then I don't know what is; then you'll try to correct me. You'll fight, and have been, tooth and nail over the pettiest of details! A fight, as define it, is two or more people having a coming to blows. This is that. This is me telling you how childish both of us have been! I do say both because it takes two to waltz, and what a drunken waltz it is! You're scared to make any blind leaps and would likely fail any workplace trust tests! You've failed--utterly failed--to use basic techniques to make a stable argument; instead using some form of backwards logic that is as toxic to read as it is to try understanding!

You repeatedly state that you have no motive for "winning" this squabble, which I bet neither you nor I even remember what the matter we've started squabbling over, despite continuing on and on. Here's some basic logic for you! Everything happens for a reason. I'm being figurative or spiritual in saying that. It's BASIC logic. People do things because they have a motive! Yet you claim to not have one, which is infuriating! It comes across as you trying to say, "I'm so great that I don't even have reason to argue with you, though I do so because I wish to grace you with my vast knowledge." It's so pompous it makes me sick! I was wrong. You care more about seeming intelligent than you do of actually being intelligent.

You're the worst person to socialize with and I hope to never come across you even on my best of days! If there was even the inkling of truth in what you said when you stated that you did not dislike me then do me this service, as empathy from one human being to another. Do not respond. I do not care how you read into that request, just don't do it. The greatest satisfaction I will gain out of all of this is that you will not receive the petty victory of having the last word, and that all the things you still wish to say will not be said. If you truly have no motive and hold no aggression towards me, then do this in my name... ************.

I don't see what's wrong with arguing semantics if one party is unwilling to participate in a common language. If words and their meanings are being misinterpreted, then they must be explained, there is nothing petty about trying to reach a clearer understanding with someone. We have not "come to blows", not on any intellectual, emotional and certainly not physical sense of the phrase, and I harbor no antagonistic ill will towards you that would facilitate such an exchange, I simply do not think there is anything to fight about. Again with the metaphors: I'm not afraid to take blind leaps, but I'd still rather look out below, if someone said they'd catch me I might believe them (given good reason) but I am prepared for the possibility that they'll let me fall. There's nothing backwards about my logic as I've written it, I've only had to deconstruct it for your benefit, but if you read what I wrote in the beginning there is no contradiction and it makes fine logical sense.

I actually do remember what this started over, I've looked back a few pages to see what that was. I explained, just as I still hold now, that I don't think feelings and emotions have a place in Economics, which I explained later as being a science to which logic was applicable. What do you mean you're being figurative or spiritual in saying everything happens for a reason? You don't need to do either, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is reason enough, you don't need to get all metaphysical on me. But just because everything has a reason doesn't make any reason the right one, sometimes it's not the reason we think and the matter requires further investigation. You claim to know my motive, and I've explained several times how what you thought my motive was is wrong, I offered you politeness and you wrote it off as a falsehood simply because you were not reciprocating of the notion. I take issue, again, with this idea that this conversation boils down to me lording my supposed knowledge over you. That is not the point here, I'm only explaining what it is I believe, and it's not like my belief is guarded, vague or obscure, you can find reference to logic anywhere, we use it to some degree almost every day.

You're right, I don't always make for great conversation, but that has little to nothing to do with me choosing logic over irrational behavior. For me logic applies to mathematics, science, and rational discourse, so long as I'm not engaged in any of the three with someone the subject doesn't even come up, once more disproving an assertion of yours that logic somehow dominates my life. It does not.

You should know by now I'm not interested in empathy, and while I find your pleading amusing I see no reason to abide by it. As you've made it abundantly clear, you are not my friend, and I don't do favors for strangers. Disconnect your begging from any false accusations about my character or what I believe and I could leave it alone, otherwise I will continue to respond to help clarify things for you to the best of my ability.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Just throwing my opinion here onto the pile.

People are talking about whether they should target their rage at the CEO or the Company or whatever.

The answer is actually none of those things. You should target your anger at the action itself that made you ticked in the first place. There is no need to find out who to place the blame on. That way, no one innocent is caught in the rage and the action will still be discouraged.

The problem though is that this is all assuming at least a majority of gamers won't throw around their rage indiscriminately. Sadly, this is just not the case so in the end, since the rage we vent is so chaotic, I feel it really should be discouraged. If you can't say anything nice ever, don't say anything at all.

 

[UberPubert]

You're a petty, despicable creature, and that's me putting it gently. Just say what you mean or forever hold your peace. I want you summarize in just one sentence what your point is. Just one. I already know what you are. You're a pompous child who wants to appear to be my superior. You have no empathy, but you try to justify your philosophy anyway by claiming it would make the world a better place despite that such thing would matter little to an egotistical, self-righteous, narcissistic ninny such as yourself. The original subject didn't truly matter to you in the first place. Once somebody challenged you itt was all about winning from there on. What philosophy justifies that? At least you admitted it in the in. You admitted that you're an apathetically asshole. Everything else in between was just pussy-footing around the fact. I'd think you'd actually enjoy Ayn Rand. You two share much in common. Both of you are dead--one literally, one figuratively--and both of you are ethical egoists.

All you ever told me is that I'm wrong; but you never told me why. Then you acted all appalled, like it you were being perfectly clear. You weren't. You are liar more often than a truth-teller.

By the way, your diction is atrocious. Have fun, you know...being an asshole. But hey, at least you're an asshole who gets the last word. I hope it fills the void.

My point is the same as it's ever been: Passion has no place in Economics. Though, you could specify what I should be making a single-sentence point about. Are you asking me to summarize what logic is? Are you asking me to prove that I like it, or make a point about why? I find your request to be vague considering your long line of replies.

To say I have no empathy is a large leap from what I actually said, being that I'm not interested in empathy, specifically for or from you, when applied to the context of the post I made it in, in response to your plea for empathy. I'm perfectly capable of empathy in the real world, but I don't think it's a legitimate tool in any kind of constructive discussion. I do think the world would be a better place for using rationale and logic more frequently, I never said it'd be perfect but I think we should strive for that improvement. I've even conceded it wouldn't solve everything on multiple occasions, though I still insist it's a better tactic than what most people would suggest, once more including things like blind rage or venom. Also, I don't need to justify logic. When properly used it's self justifying because it's just a way of using mathematical constants as universal truths expressed as language and ideals, it's right because the system it's born from is one we all agree to because reality as we know it would not be explicable without it. Logic does not claim to have all the answers, but so long as it has the facts it can provide a solution, and until the facts are proved false it remains true.

If the original subject didn't matter to me then why would I bother commenting on it in the first place? And why does me trying to answer questions or address criticism in an attempt to win an argument devaluing my original standpoint? Just because these things don't relate to our current discussion does not mean I hold them as constants for every discussion I have. Sometimes I am interested in winning a debate, there's no fault in that when I don't claim to be doing otherwise. Healthy debate in a forum of one's peers sharpens the wit and helps one practice what they might say.

I have not admitted I'm an "apathetically asshole", I'd argue I'm neither of those things. If I was apathetic I wouldn't care to respond or comment in the first place, and while in fact I rarely do, that is more from the standpoint of a reserved opinion. Sometimes I simply don't know all the facts I need to debate a point I care about, and so I'll withhold it until more information can be divulged, because arguing from ignorance is faulty, even if by chance you end up being right. I'm also not an asshole because, as you said, "Incorrect, an animal cannot consist entirely of being an anus.".

I told you you were wrong for making assumptions about me, and those assumptions are still wrong. If you asked questions rather than made blanket statements, I'd be more than happy to answer them, but making general accusations about people and expecting them to respond with a lengthy counterargument isn't fair. If I say that you are a manatee, are you going to respond with photos of yourself, a birth certificate and driver's license to prove that you are in fact a human, or are you going to reply simply that you are not a manatee? The burden of proof has always been laid at the feet of the accuser, not the accused.

What's your problem with my diction? I'm always open to honest feedback. Again, I can't be an asshole, and while I'm fine with the last word there's no hole for it to fill.

 

[Evonisia]

That Toxic ending was mandatory, and was much more appealing than the video to the song (though 10 years of being beaten with it will sicken most).

 

[PoloniumFist]

I'm dying here. Jim, you're my favorite person.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I've always thought of myself as a particularly level-headed person.

I think there's a place for rational debate and there's a place for campaigning / protesting with a specific goal in mind. I wouldn't refer to that as "anger" or "venom" though. Those are, to my mind, entirely negative emotions - "emotion" being the key word there. I don't have a problem with forceful discourse, but let it be rational.

And this should really not need to be said, but I don't think you made it clear in your video, Jim: there is absolutely no place in gaming culture, or any other culture, for misogynist shitwads who turn the bullying and harrassment of female journalists into some kind of hateful "game". None. You have a right to state your opinion, as others have a right to state theirs. What you do NOT have a right to do is persecute someone for making comments that you don't like.