Senate Candidate Attacked Over World of Warcraft
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Not surprised. "Stab" is a strong word.
Imagine you've never watched a game of WoW being played before, you don't know that the "stab" in question is more like a slapstick poke or prod until the badman-fall-down-go-boom.
So with that frame of context erased, you're reading the word "stab", and you think of a REAL LIFE F***IN ON DA STREET STABBIN, YO. Knife goes in, organs are cut or sliced in half, blood escapes, knife pulled out, internals come with it, spilling out all over the sorry victim, the death isn't quick, they're alive, they feel the pain and they know they're dying, there's no escape from this fate, they wish it was over in a flash, they wish their brain and senses weren't intact, they wish for death, but all they can do is hold their hand to their wound and hope the knife doesn't come around another time. Which it does from the candidates assassin. The knife cuts again, and again, because once is not enough, as the level 68 assassin looks on with a cheeky smile and a sense of vacant glee visible beneath the blood spatter. "Oh god." the victim thinks, unable to speak through the pain, but tears of disbelief in their eyes "What is wrong with this person? Is she finding this fun!?"
I'm not surprised there's a backlash with this in mind. Politics really isn't the place to bring your gamer-speak when you're talking to people who might be the victims of violent and serious crime, and may even have to work around the very real thing from day to day in the Police or in Hospitals.
A good lesson for all of us. I always cringe when I hear todays kids talking about "Killing" NPC's who've really only been arrested, or harmlessly de-spawned according to the game's internal logic. It can turn a family friendly fun filled game like Mario into the straight-up GTA Goomba Genocide, in the minds-eye of the uninitiated...
Imagine you've never watched a game of WoW being played before, you don't know that the "stab" in question is more like a slapstick poke or prod until the badman-fall-down-go-boom.
So with that frame of context erased, you're reading the word "stab", and you think of a REAL LIFE F***IN ON DA STREET STABBIN, YO. Knife goes in, organs are cut or sliced in half, blood escapes, knife pulled out, internals come with it, spilling out all over the sorry victim, the death isn't quick, they're alive, they feel the pain and they know they're dying, there's no escape from this fate, they wish it was over in a flash, they wish their brain and senses weren't intact, they wish for death, but all they can do is hold their hand to their wound and hope the knife doesn't come around another time. Which it does from the candidates assassin. The knife cuts again, and again, because once is not enough, as the level 68 assassin looks on with a cheeky smile and a sense of vacant glee visible beneath the blood spatter. "Oh god." the victim thinks, unable to speak through the pain, but tears of disbelief in their eyes "What is wrong with this person? Is she finding this fun!?"
I'm not surprised there's a backlash with this in mind. Politics really isn't the place to bring your gamer-speak when you're talking to people who might be the victims of violent and serious crime, and may even have to work around the very real thing from day to day in the Police or in Hospitals.
A good lesson for all of us. I always cringe when I hear todays kids talking about "Killing" NPC's who've really only been arrested, or harmlessly de-spawned according to the game's internal logic. It can turn a family friendly fun filled game like Mario into the straight-up GTA Goomba Genocide, in the minds-eye of the uninitiated...
The DPS comment isn't bad. Look at it in context. Lachowicz made that comment, and clearly, she knows what DPS means. She is just calling it deaths per second as an exaggeration of her skills, most likely. It's probably not ignorance, just a bit of harmless trash talking. After all, if she wasn't making a joke, she probably wouldn't have said DPS, and then explained what it meant. Also, technically speaking, you COULD calculate deaths per second. It would be very difficult to do and context dependent, but still relevant.hazabaza1 said:
She is a Democrat, and thats a big part of who she is. She believes that as a democrat, she is more rational, tolerant, and less prone to solving problems with violence, generally being more pro-social, especially seeing her work history as, if if I remember correctly, a social worker. So she sees the humor in a Democrat enjoying pretending to stab people in a sneaky, underhanded fashion and generally be very anti-social. For her, there is a very big irony here, ironic enough to be worth sharing with people in a social situation. In your example above, it would be like if the movie the gay man liked was filled almost entirely with scantily clad females. Its hardly crazy, but the irony is at least enough to be worth commenting on.Saltyk said:
Though I don't want to get into a political thing, I think that yes, there are ignorant anti-gamers in both parties, but Conservatives are far more well known for pushing heavy handed culture wars that obsess over some imagined decline of "Values" or "Morals". Democrats like that exist, but for Republicans, thats their shtick.
Actually, frighteningly enough, the brain works that way. It's been shown in neurological studies that even though we like to think we are rational people who'll make decisions with pure logic, the brain is more inclined to believe something that it's told over and over and over again.Tanis said:
Repetition can sadly win this, and both major parties are trying to exploit this loophole in our cognizance for their own goals. In effect, I suppose, it's already a natural form of mind control.
At the very least, the GOP will be scared of us.Lunar Templar said:can i be your running mate? i can totally kill dragons, and gods, i have 2 titles in Vindictus to back this up
CriticKitten said:And again the core fault in your argument seeps through: you claim that you're a majority, that most people in your party are disillusioned with its direction, and yet you also keep hammering this "appeal to popularity" bit, claiming that you couldn't possibly fix things because there are so many people against you. It can be one or the other, but not both. Either the majority disagrees with the party platform (in which case you CAN fix things) or the majority agrees with the party's direction (in which case you don't get to complain about the stereotypes associated with the party since, for the majority of your party members, they apply perfectly).Falterfire said:
Again, you're either a majority or you're not. You can't be both.
Second, doesn't the fact that two major political movements have risen up in the last four years (neither of which was fueled by the television/radio media originally, but rather by social media like Facebook), not to mention the existence of folks on both sides of the aisle who correctly point out many flaws in our government, sort of prove that it's entirely possible to fix things in the long term? Of course the media tore these movements apart, they represent the growing influence of the internet and the dying influence of mainstream media sources. But like it or not, those people are going to grow up and take over the jobs currently held by these "status quo" folks. In the long run, they will be replaced by a generation with less of an irrational fear of the internet and social media. So really, they're fighting a losing battle.
Who is relying on stereotypes now?
Oh, that's easy. I don't believe in the party system. See, I'm an advocate of a statement that a wise man once said:
You get a cookie if you remember who said that. If you don't, educate yourself and Google it. A shame that there are too few people in today's society that remember these wise words.
That's because the brain decides very early on what it wants to think, and eventually grows rigid in those beliefs once they've decided. This is why it's much more common for young people to change political affiliations than older folks.
You know what else doesn't get reported on very often? Teachers who do a good job teaching. Or police officers who do a good job protecting innocent life. Or firefighters who save lives. Yet we hear plenty of talks about how "useless" these people are whenever there's a contract dispute. Fox News in particular is especially eager to jump on these individuals, claiming they make a bajillion dollars a year and that they're just greedy and corrupt people seeking only their own benefits.
Fact of the matter is, bad news is the easiest kind of news to report. Good news isn't.
I'm not pretending it isn't broken, I'm saying that it's not incredibly difficult to fix. It's something that the parties could easily do if they wanted to, but they don't. They prefer it this way. People are easier to control when they're less educated on the issues (thanks to poor media coverage), discouraged from voting, and in general discouraged from standing up for their beliefs. The fact that you just roll over and accept that your party has been taken over by a hostile minority is proof positive that what they're doing is working, and your party will never be fixed so long as you throw up your hands and quit. There are outstanding members of your party who realize the problems with it. If you would try to rally behind them, you'd have a better shot. Heck, Ron Paul's been trying to save your party for years, and while he has problems of his own, the fact that most of your party refuses to at least acknowledge the sentiment behind his platform is very indicative of the problems your party faces.
I agree with you and George Washington on the party system being a bad plan. In fact, it seems that I agree with your basic points on quite a few things. Were we arguing in person instead of facelessly through the internet I have a hunch we'd pretty quickly have resolved this instead of quibbling over details. SIDENOTE: If you think you don't agree with my points, I can assure you that given I agree with yours it's probably because I have not articulated my points in the manner which I meant to.
So I guess that's my closing bit: We agree on more things than we don't, and it's time for me to go be angry at other people rather than pushing the few remaining details.
If it were not for the fact that there is a link from the party website to the Colleen's World site, I would definitely think that it was created to discredit the Republican party. I guess I was just hoping that is was sneaky and backhanded manipulation rather than just stupidity.
Is this a tactic to get the elderly population, afraid of video games and high fantasy on their side? Because if so, mission really not accomplished.
Not surprising. Not that it matters though, if you support the republican party you probably also support things like the NRA, which is the legitimate business branch of the KKK. Basically, you and the muslims are competing to see who can ruin the world first.
This is the kind of two-bit Republican bullshit that the rest of us deride. He had full control for six months, which wasn't actually control since there are quite a few Democratic congressmen in conservative districts who consistently vote with the Republicans on many issues. In that time, he tried to work with the Republicans and Teabaggers toward compromise on various issues, which they absolutely REFUSED. Not only were they refusing to compromise, they were refusing to even bring their own ideas and plans to the table.Kingpopadopalus said:
You cannot run a government when half of it is outright refusing to even consider the smallest fraction of the ideas of the other half.
I don't have a problem with the Rand Pauls and the Paul Ryans of congress, who are obstructionist because they genuinely believe their bullshit. I have a problem with the rest of the Republicans, who don't actually give a damn about the condition of this country or the people in it. Unless, of course, they make more than $10 million a year.
I care about facts. I care about data. I care about statistics. All of them, over the last fifty years, support the economic policies of the Democrats more than the Republicans. We had no national debt to speak of prior to Reagan's incredibly stupid tax cut for the rich. When Bush 41, at the end of his term, and Clinton worked to reign this in, the main bloc of the Republican party attempted to destroy everything they accomplished, succeeding in SPADES with Bush 43 and his worthless war in Iraq, a war which has cost us dearly.
Now we have a Republican candidate for President who wants to cut the taxes of the rich even more, claiming they "pay too much." The last time the top marginal tax rate was this low was IMMEDIATELY prior to the Great Depression, and the reduction in taxes can be directly tied to the decline of the economy at that time. It took a World War and an increase in the top marginal rate to 90% for us to recover.
Recover we did, for thirty years, until Kennedy decided to cut the rate to 70%. Then the unemployment rate rose dramatically. Cut to 50% by Reagan. Tenfold increase in the national debt. Cut to the 30s by Reagan and Bush 41: Increased debt, increased deficit. Increased to 40% by Clinton: Suddenly, we're running a surplus, with rampant growth in every sector. Then bush reduces the rate to 36%. Massive unemployment. 35%. Increased unemployment. 30%. EXPLOSIVE unemployment.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QITxTOj_Djg/TVBKivqx-EI/AAAAAAAAAEA/PGH3CWC05qM/s1600/TaxAndGrowChained.png They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a chart of the top marginal rate vs chained-GDP over time.