Zero Punctuation: inFamous
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Tkwelge ; The problem here is twofold. Firstly, much of what you describe here has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of information presented (I don't really care if Rush is partially deaf, I care if he lies all the time,) and secondly, much of what you're saying about Stewart simply isn't true.
One of the crucial skills when it comes to being able to sift your news is the ability to perceive a relevant fact and then discern how arguments or claims related to it hold up under rational scrutiny. In the case of John Stewart, the relationship remains consistent. I turn on the Daily Show and John Stewart is pointing out that there is no basis for fear when it comes to housing terrorism suspects within the United States, since we do in fact have the facilities to maintain high security criminal threats, added to the fact that few of these suspects have been found guilty of any crime whatsoever. The argument is sound. How many writers he has making it doesn't weight into the equation. He then goes on to show a clip of Rep. Michael Rogers promoting the argument that Gitmo could still serve us by housing people even if they're not found guilty. Stewart again makes the only rational argument, which is that an egalitarian society doesn't imprison people who are found not guilty.
As for bullying people, I just watched Stewart and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have a very polite, very peer to peer debate about the abortion issue, so the notion that Stewart is just some overbearing bully with anyone who doesn't agree with him is simply and demonstrably false, a strawman attack for people who don't like Stewart or "the left." These are random examples, they depict the overall trend of his show.
I've called Rush's show a few times in the past. He's terrible at debate and often makes no attempt to. Once, in the debate of whether or not the United States is a "Christian Nation whose strength derives from its solid moral values, not its diversity," he simply hung up on me after I stated my counter position, and then announced to the audience, "Well, folks, God help us all if there are many more people who think that way." That is bullying from the pulpit, and not something you see John Stewart do.
John Stewart, as I said before, is so good with facts and reasoning that studies done on his audience show them to get more relevant and accurate information from his 45 minutes a week of comedy than they do from several hours a week of Rush or CNN or Fox News. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has multiple volumes exposing the disinformation he's spread, and is the sort of person who would loudly and belligerently advocate draconian, excessive and ineffective punishments against drug pushers while he himself was committing that very crime. If you can't figure out which of these models actually deserves your contempt then you simply illustrate exactly what is wrong with those who lean to the right in this nation. In short, stop making up crap about Stewart just because he advocates positions you don't agree with, and stop promoting a hypocritical criminal just because he advocates ones you do.
One of the crucial skills when it comes to being able to sift your news is the ability to perceive a relevant fact and then discern how arguments or claims related to it hold up under rational scrutiny. In the case of John Stewart, the relationship remains consistent. I turn on the Daily Show and John Stewart is pointing out that there is no basis for fear when it comes to housing terrorism suspects within the United States, since we do in fact have the facilities to maintain high security criminal threats, added to the fact that few of these suspects have been found guilty of any crime whatsoever. The argument is sound. How many writers he has making it doesn't weight into the equation. He then goes on to show a clip of Rep. Michael Rogers promoting the argument that Gitmo could still serve us by housing people even if they're not found guilty. Stewart again makes the only rational argument, which is that an egalitarian society doesn't imprison people who are found not guilty.
As for bullying people, I just watched Stewart and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have a very polite, very peer to peer debate about the abortion issue, so the notion that Stewart is just some overbearing bully with anyone who doesn't agree with him is simply and demonstrably false, a strawman attack for people who don't like Stewart or "the left." These are random examples, they depict the overall trend of his show.
I've called Rush's show a few times in the past. He's terrible at debate and often makes no attempt to. Once, in the debate of whether or not the United States is a "Christian Nation whose strength derives from its solid moral values, not its diversity," he simply hung up on me after I stated my counter position, and then announced to the audience, "Well, folks, God help us all if there are many more people who think that way." That is bullying from the pulpit, and not something you see John Stewart do.
John Stewart, as I said before, is so good with facts and reasoning that studies done on his audience show them to get more relevant and accurate information from his 45 minutes a week of comedy than they do from several hours a week of Rush or CNN or Fox News. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has multiple volumes exposing the disinformation he's spread, and is the sort of person who would loudly and belligerently advocate draconian, excessive and ineffective punishments against drug pushers while he himself was committing that very crime. If you can't figure out which of these models actually deserves your contempt then you simply illustrate exactly what is wrong with those who lean to the right in this nation. In short, stop making up crap about Stewart just because he advocates positions you don't agree with, and stop promoting a hypocritical criminal just because he advocates ones you do.
I just electro-blasted the final boss. Mash triangle... walk over to power cable... walk back... mash triangle.
Still, after buying this on Yahtzee's recommendation (there was one there, I'm SURE of it) this is one of the funnest games I've played in a while. Surfing on railway lines is kickass. Also, the ending was pretty good (even though it's a predictable twist in pop-culture, I REALLY didn't see it coming this time).
All in all, a good game that tries too hard to add another dimension that really doesn't deliver on what it promised, but makes up for it by having a bearable story (especially by sandbox standards), as well as challenging gameplay that makes every effort it can to stop itself from being repetitive (side-missions are actually... believe it or not... quite fun, and there are so many secrets for both sides of the karma spectrum to keep you busy for a while).
Still, after buying this on Yahtzee's recommendation (there was one there, I'm SURE of it) this is one of the funnest games I've played in a while. Surfing on railway lines is kickass. Also, the ending was pretty good (even though it's a predictable twist in pop-culture, I REALLY didn't see it coming this time).
All in all, a good game that tries too hard to add another dimension that really doesn't deliver on what it promised, but makes up for it by having a bearable story (especially by sandbox standards), as well as challenging gameplay that makes every effort it can to stop itself from being repetitive (side-missions are actually... believe it or not... quite fun, and there are so many secrets for both sides of the karma spectrum to keep you busy for a while).
You can stop whining whenever you are ready. You can join the rest of the class when you are done with your tantrum.Pellucid said:
Okay seriously, first, I am not a Democrat. Secondly, it was not a legitimate complaint. It was whining. If you are complaining about a joke, chances are you are a whiny b***h who is too touchy (probability is a little irrelevant in this case since this is a literal example of when it is so). Thirdly, I should be a little ashamed at replying to a month old thread.
I've not actually read through the bricks of texts that have popped up on this thread but I skimmed through and got the gist, if you all like debating politics and yahtzee go check out his newest venture.
http://www.gamedamage.net/
it is a show and it has a great forum for this sort of thing. so go check it out...
http://www.gamedamage.net/
it is a show and it has a great forum for this sort of thing. so go check it out...
"...handing out superpowers to random passers-by seems as good a system as any, since we can all ask ourselves weather we'd use the gift to help people or blow up the entire world."
Yahtzee, if you're wondering about this sort of thing, might I suggest that you buy the trade paperbacks for DC's series 52?
The reason why I bring this up is because Lex Luthor does just that with the Everyman project, which activates the metagenes of everyone in the project and gives them superpowers.
Yahtzee, if you're wondering about this sort of thing, might I suggest that you buy the trade paperbacks for DC's series 52?
The reason why I bring this up is because Lex Luthor does just that with the Everyman project, which activates the metagenes of everyone in the project and gives them superpowers.
I've always wanted to try this game. Makes me annoyed it wasn't released for multiple consoles. I like games featuring super powered characters, especially if sandbox, since it can offer unique ways to get about the city. The only thing that sounded really bad to me was the moral choice system. Ben pretty much hits all the main points on the head in here. Moral choice isn't really offering for freedom for gaming its just two different paths, sometimes with little difference (I'm looking at you Fable II). I understand that would probably be nearly impossible for developers to truly create games with 100% freedom of choice, but really, just a few grey area choices would be nice, where things are less clear cut.