The Colbert Retort
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm confused about something, what exactly does this have to do with video games? I mean its one thing for a individual person to post a thread in the forums but why is a staff member publishing something that seem to have nothing to do with the theme of this website? It seems as out of place to put it here on the websites main page.MovieBob said:
OT: The whole thing comes off like something you hear about in high school- a petty dispute between two teenagers which involves making mountains out of mole hills.
"Bashing"? Its hardly "bashing" to point out how overly hostile, bigoted, and sensitive SJW behave on places like tumblr.DrunkenElfMage said:
The fact that the world isn't perfect is irrelevant to Park's behavior.DrunkenElfMage said:
Well all I see here is one cishet white male condescending to whitesplain and mansplain why what another cishet white male said isn't hateful and bigoted. Maybe they both just need to check their privilege and stop whining about their first world problems.
I can't believe the guy that told me about the unconventional racism of Halo, just how awful it is to make a media product aimed at teenage boys, South Park as a gated community, and other similar gems is getting cold feet all of sudden.
Seriously though, #CancelColbert and #IStandWithSuey. I can't think of justice more poetic than for a white male minstrel show to be hoist on its own politically correct petard.
I can't believe the guy that told me about the unconventional racism of Halo, just how awful it is to make a media product aimed at teenage boys, South Park as a gated community, and other similar gems is getting cold feet all of sudden.
Seriously though, #CancelColbert and #IStandWithSuey. I can't think of justice more poetic than for a white male minstrel show to be hoist on its own politically correct petard.
I feel quite strongly that disliking something, even disliking something strongly, is not reason enough for that thing to cease to exist.
And if there's one place where the current left-wing culture (with which I generally identify) goes overboard, it's in the rush to presume that something it doesn't like is harmful. It isn't that a joke makes you feel bad; it perpetuates a stereotype that enables violence. It isn't that watching someone play a video game distrubs you; it's that it causes children to be aggressive. All too frequently this is wrapped up with a bow of "common sense", enabling the claims to be made with little or no relation to proven cause and effect.
(You aren't against common sense, are you? That would mean you're irrational, and that's one more reason to immediately dismiss anything else you have to say.)
What's really frustrating is that it ought to be enough to start a discussion that something makes people feel bad. We're capable of empathy, right? We don't want people to feel bad, right? We're capable of being that promised, idealized culture of inclusion that recognizes people are different without leaping to the conclusion that their "outsider" nature makes them somehow dangerous, right...?
(You know, much like jumping to the conclusion that that thing which makes you feel bad must also be dangerous...?)
...But no, we have to jump in with both guns blazing. Middle ground? What's that? Respect? Not due to the enemy! You have to come from a position of strength, and you never come to the table with anything less than a thundering, denunciatory how dare you?!
Park misused her power. I'm not going to call her some derogatory term for being female or Asian, but I'm not going to couch things with "there are a lot of rotten people 'defending' Colbert" or the presumption that she's usually right and righteous. In this case, she's multiple layers of wrong. She jumped to conclusions without bothering to gain context, she assumed it was her right to destroy the thing that made her uncomfortable, she's apparently stuck to defending a wrong-headed conclusion, and she's hollowed out her own side's ability to rally the next time there's something actually dangerous that needs to be addressed.
To my mind, she doesn't deserve excuses for her actions, regardless of how sickening some of her attackers may be. She needs to have that stick she's lashing out with wildly taken away and given to someone responsible.
The zealots for a cause, however righteous, are capable of doing far more damage to that cause than its detractors. We need to stop making excuses for people who are on our side badly. We need to stop being glad for their additional numbers, their rousing fury, their fire.
If you want to burn books, I don't care with what brand of martyrdom you choose to paint yourself. I don't want you on my side.
And if there's one place where the current left-wing culture (with which I generally identify) goes overboard, it's in the rush to presume that something it doesn't like is harmful. It isn't that a joke makes you feel bad; it perpetuates a stereotype that enables violence. It isn't that watching someone play a video game distrubs you; it's that it causes children to be aggressive. All too frequently this is wrapped up with a bow of "common sense", enabling the claims to be made with little or no relation to proven cause and effect.
(You aren't against common sense, are you? That would mean you're irrational, and that's one more reason to immediately dismiss anything else you have to say.)
What's really frustrating is that it ought to be enough to start a discussion that something makes people feel bad. We're capable of empathy, right? We don't want people to feel bad, right? We're capable of being that promised, idealized culture of inclusion that recognizes people are different without leaping to the conclusion that their "outsider" nature makes them somehow dangerous, right...?
(You know, much like jumping to the conclusion that that thing which makes you feel bad must also be dangerous...?)
...But no, we have to jump in with both guns blazing. Middle ground? What's that? Respect? Not due to the enemy! You have to come from a position of strength, and you never come to the table with anything less than a thundering, denunciatory how dare you?!
Park misused her power. I'm not going to call her some derogatory term for being female or Asian, but I'm not going to couch things with "there are a lot of rotten people 'defending' Colbert" or the presumption that she's usually right and righteous. In this case, she's multiple layers of wrong. She jumped to conclusions without bothering to gain context, she assumed it was her right to destroy the thing that made her uncomfortable, she's apparently stuck to defending a wrong-headed conclusion, and she's hollowed out her own side's ability to rally the next time there's something actually dangerous that needs to be addressed.
To my mind, she doesn't deserve excuses for her actions, regardless of how sickening some of her attackers may be. She needs to have that stick she's lashing out with wildly taken away and given to someone responsible.
The zealots for a cause, however righteous, are capable of doing far more damage to that cause than its detractors. We need to stop making excuses for people who are on our side badly. We need to stop being glad for their additional numbers, their rousing fury, their fire.
If you want to burn books, I don't care with what brand of martyrdom you choose to paint yourself. I don't want you on my side.
This post isn't really meant to pick on you or anything, but you've used a term that I've wanted to respond to and discuss for a while.
Whenever discussions opposing "SJWs" comes up, assholes can easily blend into the discussion because the terms used to label the misguided saps in question are vague and many assholes use the terms interchangeably with terms used to describe people who aren't the standard blend of misguided, misinformed, and vocal; though they may say SJW, they mean and interpret it as those lesser terms, like feminist, and then recieve encouragement for those ideals from others who use it with the definition created around tumblr.txt.
This wouldn't be a problem if SJW had a more solid definition, but it's definition is at best "crazy social justice advocate" in practice, which becomes a problem among those who think all or most feminists are crazy. Because of the subjectivity of crazy here, one cannot really disagree with those people on their usage of the term; it's based on an external description of the behavior of these people rather than any specific subset of beliefs or the name of an any actual group of people anymore(though it may have been originally). In a way, it's a worse term than "privilege"; if someone misuses that term to hide the weakness in their arguments there is at least a concrete rebuttal to their positions based on the actual definition and proper usage of the term, but there can be no such rebuttal for almost entirely subjective terms like SJW.
It's really unfortunate too; the existence of SJWs as originally defined is a real problem that deserves discussion, but whenever discussions happen they almost always devolve into either racism and sexism or a massive circlejerk(or both) for the above reasons.
and as 30 minutes on r/TumblrInAction can tell you, if one doesn't take care when opposing "SJW"s, it's easy for assholes to invade the discussion because the term "SJW" lacks a solid definition, which gives assholes a code to dress up their beliefs even if they believe all feminists are crazy.T_ConX said:
Whenever discussions opposing "SJWs" comes up, assholes can easily blend into the discussion because the terms used to label the misguided saps in question are vague and many assholes use the terms interchangeably with terms used to describe people who aren't the standard blend of misguided, misinformed, and vocal; though they may say SJW, they mean and interpret it as those lesser terms, like feminist, and then recieve encouragement for those ideals from others who use it with the definition created around tumblr.txt.
This wouldn't be a problem if SJW had a more solid definition, but it's definition is at best "crazy social justice advocate" in practice, which becomes a problem among those who think all or most feminists are crazy. Because of the subjectivity of crazy here, one cannot really disagree with those people on their usage of the term; it's based on an external description of the behavior of these people rather than any specific subset of beliefs or the name of an any actual group of people anymore(though it may have been originally). In a way, it's a worse term than "privilege"; if someone misuses that term to hide the weakness in their arguments there is at least a concrete rebuttal to their positions based on the actual definition and proper usage of the term, but there can be no such rebuttal for almost entirely subjective terms like SJW.
It's really unfortunate too; the existence of SJWs as originally defined is a real problem that deserves discussion, but whenever discussions happen they almost always devolve into either racism and sexism or a massive circlejerk(or both) for the above reasons.
If you are talking about the existence of criticism, no one here did that to my knowledge, not even the article itself. If you are including racist, sexist, etc. comments as the counter-reaction in this case, then you can't really describe those as an acceptable, predictable reaction, especially given how those people can drive the discussion given what I've discussed above.
I think Twitter, or at least the general idea of twitter, is a wonderful thing and I'm leaning towards holding the actions of it's users separate from the technology involved. I just see Twitter as one step closer to a platform where we can have important discussions on a national level quickly and effectively. Unfortunately we're seeing mob mentality at times, when people decide they agree with the general sentiment of a message and they have the ability to immediately push that message to other people, without any constraints that would normally require a person to "sleep on it" or research the facts behind the opinion they just adopted. You're %100 correct in saying "Think before you speak is a rule that needs to be carved in stone in the realm of the Internet." Any new technology that lets us communicate at a world wide level will never see its full potential and will be plagued with bullshit if people don't take the time to look into the full story before adding their reactionary two cents.Mr. Q said:
I guess a perfect system will never be possible though. Either everyone can express their opinions = lots of bullshit, or Tweets are moderated to remove bullshit = not everyone can express their opinion. Maybe we could hold a referendum which would establish what constitutes an internet act of ass-hat-ery and those who violate the new law are forced to use dial-up.
This is one of the big problems of internet activism. Internet activism is built on the backs of the hordes of well meaning but ignorant online activists. They want to eliminate racism/sexism/other bad things, but they don't want to/can't put in the time to actually understand the issues or any more effort than a tweet or post takes. They want to be pointed at a target which they can then shout into submission, because that is simple and easy and black and white. It is so much easier than actually understanding the issue and requires so little effort. They may not feel that they can change the world, but this is something they can do.Yal said:
This is not necessarily bad. While the ideal is obviously people actually understanding the issue, sometimes what you really need to get something done is not quality but quantity. If the leaders stay informed, point these people in the right direction and tell them the right things this horde can be a great force for good.
The problem is that the horde doesn't know which leaders are informed. This Suey Park was a bad leader - she pointed the horde at an undeserving target because she did not go to the effort of informing herself. She jumped to a conclusion and set the horde at one of their own because she was either lazy or complacent. This makes the entire idea of internet activism look bad and harms the cause. Every time we have a misfire like this the internet, the most powerful tool in the history of mankind for the spreading of ideas, becomes less useful for these worthy causes.
The really sad part of this is that Suey Park, a person who obviously cares a great deal about issues relating to race and has worked hard in her efforts to reduce racism, has probably now had a net negative effect on the cause. It probably would have been better if she had never tried.
If Park had read an article summarising the episode instead of a short quote taken out of context then there would be no misunderstanding about Stephen's feelings regarding Asian-Americans.
Really hope Colbert satirises this.
Never mind that, she knew exactly what he has saying and is just a typical sjw. Jesus, why the hell do these people exist. Now I really hope Colbert rips her apart.
Edit: For anyone like me that thought this was born out of a misunderstanding on Park's part, here's a video for you (I know, I know, HuffPost):
As far as I am aware, The Escapist isn't just about video games, but entertainment and culture in general, including TV shows and movies, etc.Helmholtz Watson said:
Funny thing about 'all I see here'....Is that you can see what you want, or even just not all the details. It's analogous to physical sight; some eyes just don't function correctly. You may be right or justified in what you say, but who other than those who'd blindly follow your view can tell with a comment dripping with such venom, but lacking so much context (and context being either who you are, or just more details for the table).SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
And speaking of 'all I see here'....Curse that pink.
Seriously, please edit out that magenta.
Which is not at all like right-wing culture, which often seeks to outlaw things they don't like (gay marriage, video games, religious freedom, etc.) or paint them as threats that will doom society?Callate said:
Seeing as such traits are exhibited across the whole political spectrum, do you think that it might just be something to do with people in general, rather than a specific political culture?
You didn't even need to know all the context. All I needed to know going in is that 1. Someone Important had 2. started a charitable organization supporting aboriginals while 3. continuing to support the sports team name "Redskins", and 4. a tweet went up in response announcing a wildly racist other charitable organization.
You don't need to know very much to catch the satire. Urgh.
And it all could have been avoided if he just changed the team name to the Russets.
You don't need to know very much to catch the satire. Urgh.
And it all could have been avoided if he just changed the team name to the Russets.
I can't understand why anyone would criticise her. I mean, she "helped trend #notyourmascot". She's practically Mandela, Gandhi and MLK Jr all rolled into one!Hunter85792 said:
I see the future. My grandchildren ask me as we sit next to the fire place "Grandpa, where were you when Western Culture died?"
But seriously, as a historian I cannot directly pinpoint the exact point in time where everyone became so defensive and offended about the slightest joke/word/basically everything. I for one stand with Colbert, it is his right to say what he wants, Comedy Central pays him to do this, to appeal to the viewership of a certain demographic. Also it's fucking parody! COME ON!
But seriously, as a historian I cannot directly pinpoint the exact point in time where everyone became so defensive and offended about the slightest joke/word/basically everything. I for one stand with Colbert, it is his right to say what he wants, Comedy Central pays him to do this, to appeal to the viewership of a certain demographic. Also it's fucking parody! COME ON!
Oh, so she is preaching a lesson of understanding, forgiveness, education, enlightenment, equality, acceptance and tolerance? Wow, I completely missed it. Guess I'm not cool enough to see the subtexts of these young people's twitter posts.SnowWookie said:
......
Also, for your amusement.
(awesome poster found here)
Uhrm... eh... wuh?Helmholtz Watson said:
Moviebob has (what appears to be) 4 separate content contributions on this site ("Escape to the Movies", "The Big Picture", "Intermission" and "High Definition"... This is the first HD article, so not sure if this becomes a fixture), of which only one ever deals with the subject of video games (The Big Picture) and that's only on occassion.
You also have Jim Sterlings "Movie Defence Force" and Graham Starks "No right Answer" series (which does a lot of things, not just games).
We have a weekly (I think) surrealist comic strip "Fraught with Peril"
Miracle of Sound also do music unrelated to games (In the last couple of months we've had a Hobbit themed and Breaking Bad Themed track).
The News Feed will frequently include articles unrelated to games (at least not directly) including the recurring "robots will destroy us all" feeds whenever some development in AI or robotics is discovered by the authors (not always topical).
In the past we had that Slow Motion show where they'd drop stuff off of a ladder in front of a high speed camera.
There are infrequent Anime Reviews.
And we occassionally get editorials that have little or nothing to do with gaming.
This site is predominately games related, but it's also got a significant TV and Film theme and a small but not insubstantial "general" media feel. I find it astonishing that people frequently post in these topics unaware of this, especially when it comes to long time subscribers.
You also have Jim Sterlings "Movie Defence Force" and Graham Starks "No right Answer" series (which does a lot of things, not just games).
We have a weekly (I think) surrealist comic strip "Fraught with Peril"
Miracle of Sound also do music unrelated to games (In the last couple of months we've had a Hobbit themed and Breaking Bad Themed track).
The News Feed will frequently include articles unrelated to games (at least not directly) including the recurring "robots will destroy us all" feeds whenever some development in AI or robotics is discovered by the authors (not always topical).
In the past we had that Slow Motion show where they'd drop stuff off of a ladder in front of a high speed camera.
There are infrequent Anime Reviews.
And we occassionally get editorials that have little or nothing to do with gaming.
This site is predominately games related, but it's also got a significant TV and Film theme and a small but not insubstantial "general" media feel. I find it astonishing that people frequently post in these topics unaware of this, especially when it comes to long time subscribers.
OT: Can't say I disagree with Bobs assessment. Talk about making mountains out of molehills (fuck it, the molehill wasn't even there to begin with).
Also, the Fox News staff bandwagoning behind this "cancelcolbert" nonsense is just fucking typical. I imagine Hell to these people would be sudden and explosive self awareness which would force themselves to laugh at the immense irony and surreality of their lives to the point of agony for all eternity. Bill O Reilly would probably rip a whole in the fabric of reality if he was to suddenly comprehend the absurdity that is his career.
So is HD a new weekly fixture for you Bob? Or is this just an experiment to test the water. I would like to see more of this.