Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits
- Thread starter James Ennever
- Start date
Well I'm a language student so I'll give it a shot.Abandon4093 said:
Let's see...
'Argument' isn't latinate, as far as I know. It has few synonyms in common useage and non of them are closer to being core.
'Logical conclusion' is latinate, but it doesn't have any immediate equivalent that I can think of. That is certainly the most succint way of phrasing it.
'Absurd' could be replaced with an anglo-saxon word. Stupid, terrible, bad wrong, - but non of those have quite the same connotations and they all sound weak.
There you have it. I don't think anyone with a brain could really accuse you of using an unnecessarily technical or unusual vocabulary to try to sound intelligent.
Some countries incorporate the consequence to speaking out in their legal systems (especially hate speech) but that can be a bit sketchy, as the line between hate and opposition can be a bit blurry sometimes. It can easily descend into public suppression if handled by people with dubious motives.Xifel said:
In other countries there is no legal boundary to speaking your mind, no matter how full of spite and ignorance it may be. In these countries actions are punished, not opinion (though the individuals opinions may be used against them in prosecutions).
However, what I meant by consequence wasn't legal prosecution. I meant how things have a habit of coming back around... if you spread hate speech about race/sex then someone who listens to you commits an atrocity from your influence, you could be socially stigmatised because of it... this is a pretty minor consequence and the most likely one to happen in real life.
But look on the web. Someone says something controversial on a forum, what happens? Well, forgetting the few people who might agree, or the few people who make apathetic responses... most will just turn on the guy with furious anger/strong counter opinions. The guy will usually come out with something like "it's just an opinion" or "I thought we advocated free speech here" forgetting that "free speech" is applicable to all parties, including the opposition.
So I go back to my previous point. Say what you want if you feel it matters, but if you can't handle the opposition then there was no point in speaking out in the first place. Your words are only as strong as your will to defend them.
Well, Jim is like a real person, who bears himself in front of a camera and speaks his mind and uses swear words like a real angry person and is true to his morals.
EC is completely in cartoon form with the narrator's voice pitch-shifted up several tones (for some reason), and everything they say is immaculately scripted to a fault.
So basically Jim, because he's like a cool guy who knows what he's talking about, and EC are a bunch of stoic teachers who want to educate me and even though they know what they're talking about, I wouldn't exactly want to buy 'em a beer or whatever. I get the impression from Jim that you could get to know him in real life and be bros 'n shit. With EC I feel like... well like they're speaking from way atop some self-erected podium of importance.
Also Jim makes people butthurt and angry and I admire that in a journalist.
EC is completely in cartoon form with the narrator's voice pitch-shifted up several tones (for some reason), and everything they say is immaculately scripted to a fault.
So basically Jim, because he's like a cool guy who knows what he's talking about, and EC are a bunch of stoic teachers who want to educate me and even though they know what they're talking about, I wouldn't exactly want to buy 'em a beer or whatever. I get the impression from Jim that you could get to know him in real life and be bros 'n shit. With EC I feel like... well like they're speaking from way atop some self-erected podium of importance.
Also Jim makes people butthurt and angry and I admire that in a journalist.
Actually, Extra Credits are games developers. Jim is a journalist by trade, on account that he is paid to write about games and the games industry, while Extra Credits make games. At least James does, and I know that Dan is an (ex?-)Pixar employee. But yeah they aren't journos, they're more the equivalent of someone in a profession turning around and becoming a teacher of that profession. They do no journalism.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
I kinda disagree with you there on Jim being like a real person. All I see is a unfunny sentient slab of bacon when I watch his shows. Also, he wears short sleeve shirts and t-shirts under a coat with a lapel, that is just unforgivable.Andy of Comix Inc said:
Also, the topic is what show should the industry listen to. Quite frankly, I think with any situation where you have an industry or some other body with power looking to the community for insight, I would MUCH rather have them listen to the educators rather than the unwashed plebs.
Sorry, I know this is an aside and doesn't detract from the opinion at hand, but is it actually possible to criticize Jim Sterling without throwing out petty insults like "slab of bacon," "unwashed pleb," other posters with stuff like "fathead". Do you have so little words about his actual quality that you have to compromise and just insult the fellow?Elamdri said:
I've never seen anything quite like it, every time "Jim is shit" comes up its accompanied with a plethora of cheap jabs. No other man on the internet draws such brand of ire. I'm honestly interested in this.
The preachy attitude of Extra Credits doesn't bother me half as much as it does most people because I already know how their videos are going to be bias. They're made from the perspective of the developers and creators of games.
Sometimes it comes across as pretentious and very preachy when they have to explain a facet of the industry that the consumer (which constitutes and overwhelming majority of their audience).
Of course, sometimes they ARE being pretentious: for example see any given "Games are art" argument.
(Conversely, the "Game cannot/are not art" side is equally pretentious and pointless. It really should not matter if games are or are not art from the conceptual level, since whether or not something is art is relative to its beholder)
Sterling's Jimquisition is something of an oddball show. When he first started, it was some of the worst content on The Escapist. He was here to fill the void in the wake of the Extra Credits controversy and that was it.
However, he has improved his show considerably, and a large part of the appeal comes from the snide cathartic angle (rather than the preachy, academic angle of EC). This doesn't make him any innately more correct or incorrect by default; though he is more likely to appeal to the same audience of consumers since he too comes from the same lot.
Sometimes it comes across as pretentious and very preachy when they have to explain a facet of the industry that the consumer (which constitutes and overwhelming majority of their audience).
Of course, sometimes they ARE being pretentious: for example see any given "Games are art" argument.
(Conversely, the "Game cannot/are not art" side is equally pretentious and pointless. It really should not matter if games are or are not art from the conceptual level, since whether or not something is art is relative to its beholder)
Sterling's Jimquisition is something of an oddball show. When he first started, it was some of the worst content on The Escapist. He was here to fill the void in the wake of the Extra Credits controversy and that was it.
However, he has improved his show considerably, and a large part of the appeal comes from the snide cathartic angle (rather than the preachy, academic angle of EC). This doesn't make him any innately more correct or incorrect by default; though he is more likely to appeal to the same audience of consumers since he too comes from the same lot.
It is an interesting thread, and while clearly the public has determined Extra Credits to be the voice of a generation, I have enjoyed the discussion on the two shows.370999 said:
That said, I don't quite see how they're comparable, being such vastly different entities. Even the videos mention in the OP were about two different subjects. My childishness video was about dealing with pundits who spread lies about games, while EC was talking about harassment. I've not done a harassment video to date, though the firestorm of debate surrounding the issue seems to tell me it's worth a punt.
Anyway, I appreciate that my silly show is considered worthy of fourteen pages of debate against a show that's pretty damn successful.
And I am not a slab of bacon, to the guy who said that. I prefer to think of myself as a clump of sausage meat.
Jim Sterling is a casual, a sellout reviewer and a melagomaniac who's ideas are ALWAYS in the mainstream opinion. They are. They ALWAYS are. A cancer to the industry.
Extra Credits may love video games a bit too much but at least they've got one person on their team that actually knows his shit. Granted, they may like crappy games like Skyrim (it's not like they have the time to play games indepth unlike us unprofessional gamers) but then again, James Portnow. They also tend to go against the mainstream, as exemplified by Portnow's transcript in defense of on-disc DLC.
I'd have to go with the lesser of the two evils, if only because they provide the obvious to aspiring game developers.
Extra Credits may love video games a bit too much but at least they've got one person on their team that actually knows his shit. Granted, they may like crappy games like Skyrim (it's not like they have the time to play games indepth unlike us unprofessional gamers) but then again, James Portnow. They also tend to go against the mainstream, as exemplified by Portnow's transcript in defense of on-disc DLC.
I'd have to go with the lesser of the two evils, if only because they provide the obvious to aspiring game developers.
Jim never did. Quite the opposite. His entire persona is buried under heaping piles of sarcasm.Gunner 51 said:
...and come to think of it, EC never did too. Obviously they think of themselves as educators, but they never take an opinion and pretend like its word of god - they very much do their research and, as often as possible, debate both sides and let the audience draw the conclusion. Jim obviously does less research, but the Jimquisition is very much about one man talking about his own opinions and it comes with the implication that these opinions are his own and nothing more.
Did I mention the sarcasm?
Ah, so you're not discriminatory against Jews or Muslims!Jimothy Sterling said:
@funcooker11811
I'm not gonna quote you this time. Gratz on simply claiming that you snip because it's convenient and I snip because I'm manipulative though.
You're asking me to "rationally" defend my position. Regardless of the fact that you'll just declare anything I say irrational because you said you won't change your position, let me try anyways. And by the way, I said all of these things already.
1. If someone says something like the fire thing, the individuals that hear it have their own responsibility to react to it. It's their task to evaluate the validity and authority of the speaker, and if they react in a way harmful to themselves or others, it's their fault.
2. If a group of people has an individual with differing views, it's every single member's own responsibility to evaluate the statement made and change their position if they want to.
"most people think this, it's probably right" is not an argument. Neither is "when someone does something stupid, others will follow". All you're doing is showing that most people are simple sheep. Being a sheep is not an excuse or a reason to blame anyone for an encouragement you weren't thoughtful enough to scrutinize. It's the listener's responsibility, and saying that most people aren't able to take it doesn't mean it isn't there.
On the bullying thing, you said yourself that this has not been okay for decades and hasn't changed. Goes to show my point, which is that forbidding it is not gonna solve it and has not done so for a long time, as you said yourself.
"This is why we currently have this attitude in many parts of the web of "Oh, its okay to drive this person away from our community with hate speech, because we've always talked that way with each other! I'ts boys being boys!". Obviously I could point to that video of the creeper smelling the girl during the Street Fighter X Tekken tournament as a prime example of this, but I doubt anyone on here hasn't already seen it, and already knows how bad these kinds of things can get when we allow them to."
No, this is not why that happens. Sheep are why that happens. People going with the crowd and not being able to make up their own mind is why that happens. The guys saying "we've always done this" have picked bad behaviour up without questioning it. It's their fault, not the fault of free speech. Free speech isn't saying "Let's make that okay", it's saying these people are even more stupid and conformist now because it's their task to scrutinize what they hear from members of their community and not just get behind it and claim it as tradition or an integral part. What you're pointing to is not a fallacy of freedom of speech, it's fallable people too weak to form their own view. And you'll probably say something like you said about the bullying, it's disregarding other people's emotions or it's okay because most people are weak and conformist.
Pointing to the fact that most people apparently can't take shit doesn't make it okay. Nobody ever, in any other debate, uses the "majority thinks so, it's right" argument. I'm not gonna count the obvious bullshit that would be right by that logic, you can do it yourself.
Finally, "Saying that verbal abuse should be given any protection is saying that it's okay".
Absolute bullshit. Defending someone's right to voice whatever he wants to say does not make me a supporter. This is basic responsibility, am I responsible for the murder of some kid because I didn't lock the guy who did it up in my house? Of course not.
If someone stands in a stadium and talks about how the jews need to be killed, and one member of the audience kills a jew next day, am I as the owner responsible because I didn't "protect" the audience from his talk? NO. The guy in the audience is. He's the one who heard the speech, made his mind up about how much of it he agrees with, and decided his course of action. If he's simple-minded and easy to influence, bad for him. Nobody could've known that. If he never heard any points other than the one against jews, bad for him. He could've, and he should've informed himself. It's easy as fuck now that we have internet. If he did it because his friends all heard the speech too and encouraged him, bad for him. He shouldn't have let himself be influenced as easily. We can go through any possibility of what course of mind he took. I guarantee you, none of them lead back to the person that allowed the speaker to speak. The INDIVIDUAL listener is responsible for actions he takes.
By the way, I have nothing against jews. In retrospect, that example was stupid because you're less likely to consider the reasoning because now you have extreme associations. Whatever.
I'm not gonna quote you this time. Gratz on simply claiming that you snip because it's convenient and I snip because I'm manipulative though.
You're asking me to "rationally" defend my position. Regardless of the fact that you'll just declare anything I say irrational because you said you won't change your position, let me try anyways. And by the way, I said all of these things already.
1. If someone says something like the fire thing, the individuals that hear it have their own responsibility to react to it. It's their task to evaluate the validity and authority of the speaker, and if they react in a way harmful to themselves or others, it's their fault.
2. If a group of people has an individual with differing views, it's every single member's own responsibility to evaluate the statement made and change their position if they want to.
"most people think this, it's probably right" is not an argument. Neither is "when someone does something stupid, others will follow". All you're doing is showing that most people are simple sheep. Being a sheep is not an excuse or a reason to blame anyone for an encouragement you weren't thoughtful enough to scrutinize. It's the listener's responsibility, and saying that most people aren't able to take it doesn't mean it isn't there.
On the bullying thing, you said yourself that this has not been okay for decades and hasn't changed. Goes to show my point, which is that forbidding it is not gonna solve it and has not done so for a long time, as you said yourself.
"This is why we currently have this attitude in many parts of the web of "Oh, its okay to drive this person away from our community with hate speech, because we've always talked that way with each other! I'ts boys being boys!". Obviously I could point to that video of the creeper smelling the girl during the Street Fighter X Tekken tournament as a prime example of this, but I doubt anyone on here hasn't already seen it, and already knows how bad these kinds of things can get when we allow them to."
No, this is not why that happens. Sheep are why that happens. People going with the crowd and not being able to make up their own mind is why that happens. The guys saying "we've always done this" have picked bad behaviour up without questioning it. It's their fault, not the fault of free speech. Free speech isn't saying "Let's make that okay", it's saying these people are even more stupid and conformist now because it's their task to scrutinize what they hear from members of their community and not just get behind it and claim it as tradition or an integral part. What you're pointing to is not a fallacy of freedom of speech, it's fallable people too weak to form their own view. And you'll probably say something like you said about the bullying, it's disregarding other people's emotions or it's okay because most people are weak and conformist.
Pointing to the fact that most people apparently can't take shit doesn't make it okay. Nobody ever, in any other debate, uses the "majority thinks so, it's right" argument. I'm not gonna count the obvious bullshit that would be right by that logic, you can do it yourself.
Finally, "Saying that verbal abuse should be given any protection is saying that it's okay".
Absolute bullshit. Defending someone's right to voice whatever he wants to say does not make me a supporter. This is basic responsibility, am I responsible for the murder of some kid because I didn't lock the guy who did it up in my house? Of course not.
If someone stands in a stadium and talks about how the jews need to be killed, and one member of the audience kills a jew next day, am I as the owner responsible because I didn't "protect" the audience from his talk? NO. The guy in the audience is. He's the one who heard the speech, made his mind up about how much of it he agrees with, and decided his course of action. If he's simple-minded and easy to influence, bad for him. Nobody could've known that. If he never heard any points other than the one against jews, bad for him. He could've, and he should've informed himself. It's easy as fuck now that we have internet. If he did it because his friends all heard the speech too and encouraged him, bad for him. He shouldn't have let himself be influenced as easily. We can go through any possibility of what course of mind he took. I guarantee you, none of them lead back to the person that allowed the speaker to speak. The INDIVIDUAL listener is responsible for actions he takes.
By the way, I have nothing against jews. In retrospect, that example was stupid because you're less likely to consider the reasoning because now you have extreme associations. Whatever.
"They're made from the perspective of the developers and creators of games."Atmos Duality said:
I find that statement pretty debatable.
This is the ONLY example you could find?
Emm... yeah that sounds about right. Although the "academic angle" is again, pretty debatable... some of the videos are so hopelessly devoid of anything remotely resembling Socratic dialog or references that it is embarrassing. For example... I remember playing "Myth of the Gun" for an associate of mine, from Japan, who is a medical researcher, Ph.D. and a fifth Dan in Kendo... the look on his face was priceless. Weebo comes to mind.
There both garbage, but at the least, Jim is mildly entertaining garbage... the games equivalent to the national enquirer... EC, is the same, but they seem to "think" they aren't, which is comedy in and of itself.
Thank you for that. Never watched that before but I am inclined to agree form what I have seen.ArnRand said: