190 Comments
  • 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Orange_Pork

It'd be really great if the people who vehemently hated this kind of content just went back to 4chan or Stormfront of whatever shithole subreddit they came from. Doesn't look like any of them support the site anyway.

Edited by Lurkero

@lurkero said:

@declanusaur said:

@lurkero said:

I wouldn't blame anyone for playing through Freedom Cry and killing all the slave owners and slave merchants. Those people were extreme hypocrites. "Our country is founded on freedom...except for y'all. I need y'all for free labor."

@patrickklepek said:

@declanusaur said:

I think the point on the Kotaku comment is that sites like them, such as RPS and polygon, are Social Justice Warrior central.

Much of Patricks work is Social Justice Warrior material...

Find a better way to phrase your objection. I'm done with the SWJ moniker. It won't be tolerated anymore.

Anybody who uses the term social justice warrior as a derogatory term does not deserve your attention. "How DARE you advocate that people be treated equally!" Get out of here with that mess.

"advocate that people be treated equally!"

If that's all they did, it wouldn't be the problem is.

If like the black panthers blew up a school bus in the name of equality, you can't say "How dare they fight for equality." An extreme example, but I assume you get the point.

Actually, that example still works. If the Black Panthers blew up a school bus they probably would have been arrested and executed. If a white extremist group blew up a school bus they might not have been (in the mid 1900s that is). All the Black Panthers would be trying to prove is that they get arrested while Caucasian people did not. If the Black Panthers were going to get arrested while fighting for equality, they were going to take people down with them.

Wow you took this completely somewhere else. It was a side point about someone doing something bad in the name of good and then condoning the bad act for it's intentions. Where did I say black panthers were trying to do this to say they would go to jail while white's wouldn't?

I can see you are the type that will spin it to fit your message regardless.

I wish you luck.

If the Black Panthers actually did that it would be terrible and I would not be in support of it. My point is that there is no reason not to treat everyone fairly and equally unless you are intentionally trying to be antagonistic.

Have you heard about the protests in the Ukraine? Instead of treating the citizens with dignity and listening to them the government decided to attack. That led to violent protests.

Homosexuals are often portrayed as having a "gay agenda" when all they really want is to be treated the same as everyone else in matters where sexuality does not matter.

People who have the benefit of being on the side of society that has the advantage often accuse the minority of being aggressive when often all they want is equal treatment.

(PS. If you want to use extreme examples to make a point I can use them to)

Posted by declanusaur

@lurkero said:
@declanusaur said:

@lurkero said:

@declanusaur said:

@lurkero said:

I wouldn't blame anyone for playing through Freedom Cry and killing all the slave owners and slave merchants. Those people were extreme hypocrites. "Our country is founded on freedom...except for y'all. I need y'all for free labor."

@patrickklepek said:

@declanusaur said:

I think the point on the Kotaku comment is that sites like them, such as RPS and polygon, are Social Justice Warrior central.

Much of Patricks work is Social Justice Warrior material...

Find a better way to phrase your objection. I'm done with the SWJ moniker. It won't be tolerated anymore.

Anybody who uses the term social justice warrior as a derogatory term does not deserve your attention. "How DARE you advocate that people be treated equally!" Get out of here with that mess.

"advocate that people be treated equally!"

If that's all they did, it wouldn't be the problem is.

If like the black panthers blew up a school bus in the name of equality, you can't say "How dare they fight for equality." An extreme example, but I assume you get the point.

Actually, that example still works. If the Black Panthers blew up a school bus they probably would have been arrested and executed. If a white extremist group blew up a school bus they might not have been (in the mid 1900s that is). All the Black Panthers would be trying to prove is that they get arrested while Caucasian people did not. If the Black Panthers were going to get arrested while fighting for equality, they were going to take people down with them.

Wow you took this completely somewhere else. It was a side point about someone doing something bad in the name of good and then condoning the bad act for it's intentions. Where did I say black panthers were trying to do this to say they would go to jail while white's wouldn't?

I can see you are the type that will spin it to fit your message regardless.

I wish you luck.

If the Black Panthers actually did that it would be terrible and I would not be in support of it. My point is that there is no reason not to treat everyone fairly and equally unless you are intentionally trying to be antagonistic.

Have you heard about the protests in the Ukraine? Instead of treating the citizens with dignity and listening to them the government decided to attack. That led to violent protests.

Homosexuals are often portrayed as having a "gay agenda" when all they really want is to be treated the same as everyone else in matters where sexuality does not matter.

People who have the benefit of being on the side of society that has the advantage often accuse the minority of being aggressive when often all they want is equal treatment.

(PS. If you want to use extreme examples to make a point I can use them to)

Okay, I'll play.

Ukraine those protests would of been over ages ago if the govt. attacked. The stuff the govt. has been doing is baby handling. If they "attacked" like you said, this would of been put down because the violent protesters would be dead. This stuff would of been put down in the US. Don't mention occupy wall street, I don't remember occupy using fire bombs all over the place. The geopolitical climate in Ukraine is difficult and complicated game between the Russians and the EU/US. It can't be be simplified like you had put it.

As to the homosexual comment, the people causing all this ruckus are a fringe element of the homosexual community and have painted a bad light on the others. Majority just wants it not to be a topic in like you said
"where sexuality does not matter."

People on the side with the advantage also like to blow it way out of proportion and fight for the minority in obnoxious ways because they want to say they are better than their peers. A lot of minorities dislike this because it belittles their issues because this social justice part of the majority tend to go way over board.

Posted by Lurkero

@declanusaur: That's just where we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if someone was being obnoxious when trying to help me fight for my equality, I would take what I can get. It's not like the people fighting against my equality (or being apathetic) are doing much to help.

When people say they don't want to hear about someone else's sexuality, they often ignore the fact that homosexuals do not have equal rights in many relevant areas of society. You'll stop hearing about it when they have equal rights.

Easten Europe is definitely a complicated situation, but it is pretty clear that many of the leaders in those countries are approaching dictatorial levels of control. A lot of people don't appreciate that, and dictatorships are rarely "equal treatment". A fair government leader doesn't need to send military and police to fight government protesters because there would be no reason to protest.

Posted by declanusaur

@lurkero said:

@declanusaur: That's just where we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if someone was being obnoxious when trying to help me fight for my equality, I would take what I can get. It's not like the people fighting against my equality (or being apathetic) are doing much to help.

When people say they don't want to hear about someone else's sexuality, they often ignore the fact that homosexuals do not have equal rights in many relevant areas of society. You'll stop hearing about it when they have equal rights.

Easten Europe is definitely a complicated situation, but it is pretty clear that many of the leaders in those countries are approaching dictatorial levels of control. A lot of people don't appreciate that, and dictatorships are rarely "equal treatment". A fair government leader doesn't need to send military and police to fight government protesters because there would be no reason to protest.

For one, you will never stop hearing about "equal rights" there is a ton of money to be made in complaining about inequality. The American news media is a great example of this.

Two, by your definition, there are no fair governments.

Posted by Lurkero

@lurkero said:

@declanusaur: That's just where we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if someone was being obnoxious when trying to help me fight for my equality, I would take...

Two, by your definition, there are no fair governments.

I wouldn't disagree with that. There probably will never be a fair government because people are often fighting for power and control and to have that kind of control often requires some form of unfair manipulation of society.

Humans aren't all that great.

Posted by dr_mantas

Might not listen to this. I think I've kinda had enough.

Edited by BBQBram

@declanusaur said:

@lurkero said:

@declanusaur: That's just where we will have to agree to disagree then. Even if someone was being obnoxious when trying to help me fight for my equality, I would take what I can get. It's not like the people fighting against my equality (or being apathetic) are doing much to help.

When people say they don't want to hear about someone else's sexuality, they often ignore the fact that homosexuals do not have equal rights in many relevant areas of society. You'll stop hearing about it when they have equal rights.

Easten Europe is definitely a complicated situation, but it is pretty clear that many of the leaders in those countries are approaching dictatorial levels of control. A lot of people don't appreciate that, and dictatorships are rarely "equal treatment". A fair government leader doesn't need to send military and police to fight government protesters because there would be no reason to protest.

For one, you will never stop hearing about "equal rights" there is a ton of money to be made in complaining about inequality. The American news media is a great example of this.

Two, by your definition, there are no fair governments.

I agree with your first statement. I'm from Europe and it still baffles me how obsessed America seems to be with their own (relatively short) history of slavery, and how susceptible they still are to tear-jerking Oscar bait and the like. Many countries the world over were involved in slavery and colonialism but, shockingly, the general consensus is that that stuff was tragic and inhumane and we don't really need to obsess over raising awareness and starting a public dialogue every time it gets mentioned. This game references historical events abhorred by everyone, quick, let's put it under the microscope and see what juicy sensitivity we can project onto their good intentions!

@orange_pork said:

It'd be really great if the people who vehemently hated this kind of content just went back to 4chan or Stormfront of whatever shithole subreddit they came from. Doesn't look like any of them support the site anyway.

Nice ad hominem dude. Surely there couldn't be people who see more and more political stuff detract from their favorite video game site that they've been supporting for years. Not that this kind of content is inherently bad or shouldn't have a place in the discussions on games, but when it's farcically superficial why bother.

Posted by Khann

@declanusaur said:
@moonshadow101 said:

@declanusaur: The phrase "Social Justice Warrior" carries inherent judgement. It's not an "observation."

Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect then. Social justice warrior to me is aggressive political correctness, political correctness to a fault, ect.

It's not your understanding of the definition so much as your understanding of the tone. When you use blanket terminology to refer to a person, whether it be "social justice warrior," "sensationalist," or even "troll," you imply that you've evaluated the worth of their argument before even hearing it. You're telling them that they're part of a faceless amalgam of incorrectness, and that their efforts to clarify a point are utterly lost on you. It's frustrating to serious participants in a conversation, and it makes you seem wilfully ignorant.

Call him passionate, call him overbearing, call him whatever as long as you don't use an obvious brush-off to seem superior.

Don't forget "straight white male".

I'm sorry :(

Edited by BBQBram

@khann said:

@dark_lord_spam said:
@declanusaur said:
@moonshadow101 said:

@declanusaur: The phrase "Social Justice Warrior" carries inherent judgement. It's not an "observation."

Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect then. Social justice warrior to me is aggressive political correctness, political correctness to a fault, ect.

It's not your understanding of the definition so much as your understanding of the tone. When you use blanket terminology to refer to a person, whether it be "social justice warrior," "sensationalist," or even "troll," you imply that you've evaluated the worth of their argument before even hearing it. You're telling them that they're part of a faceless amalgam of incorrectness, and that their efforts to clarify a point are utterly lost on you. It's frustrating to serious participants in a conversation, and it makes you seem wilfully ignorant.

Call him passionate, call him overbearing, call him whatever as long as you don't use an obvious brush-off to seem superior.

Don't forget "straight white male".

I'm sorry :(

Or: straight white male who just wants to read about some goddamn video games.

Posted by declanusaur

Don't worry guys, I'm sure Rorie will delete all this when he gets wind. We can't actually have discussion on this website, just a sentence form like button.

Edited by darkest4

It's starting to get annoying that Patrick is turning this site into his platform to push his political views. More than half his articles/videos/interviews are skewing everything to be about racism, sexism yadayada these days, it's getting to the point where somethings things are being twisted and overdramatized to fit whatever narrative he wants to push.

Giantbomb has always been a site I come to to just have fun and get away from all the drama, political correctness, seriousness and preaching and so on we're surrounded by from various sources, it kinda sucks that Patrick is single handedly changing that, especially because I like his other stuff when he's not up on his soapbox.

Posted by declanusaur

It'd be really great if the people who vehemently hated this kind of content just went back to 4chan or Stormfront of whatever shithole subreddit they came from. Doesn't look like any of them support the site anyway.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Khann

@bbqbram said:

@khann said:

@dark_lord_spam said:
@declanusaur said:
@moonshadow101 said:

@declanusaur: The phrase "Social Justice Warrior" carries inherent judgement. It's not an "observation."

Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect then. Social justice warrior to me is aggressive political correctness, political correctness to a fault, ect.

It's not your understanding of the definition so much as your understanding of the tone. When you use blanket terminology to refer to a person, whether it be "social justice warrior," "sensationalist," or even "troll," you imply that you've evaluated the worth of their argument before even hearing it. You're telling them that they're part of a faceless amalgam of incorrectness, and that their efforts to clarify a point are utterly lost on you. It's frustrating to serious participants in a conversation, and it makes you seem wilfully ignorant.

Call him passionate, call him overbearing, call him whatever as long as you don't use an obvious brush-off to seem superior.

Don't forget "straight white male".

I'm sorry :(

Or: straight white male who just wants to read about some goddamn video games.

I don't have a problem with the discussion, I just have a problem with not being able to have even a remotely critical view of any of the discussions that go on because I'm a "straight white male".

Posted by MC_Hify
Posted by declanusaur

@darkest4 said:

It's starting to get annoying that Patrick is turning this site into his platform to push his political views. More than half his articles/videos/interviews are skewing everything to be about racism, sexism yadayada, it's getting to the point where things are being twisted and overdramatized to fit whatever issue he wants to push. Giantbomb has always been a site I come to to just have fun and get away from all the drama, political correctness, seriousness and preaching and so on we're surrounded by from various sources, it kinda sucks that Patrick is single handedly changing that, especially because I like his other stuff when he's not up on his soapbox.

This is definitely an unfortunate trend.

Posted by BBQBram

Don't worry guys, I'm sure Rorie will delete all this when he gets wind. We can't actually have discussion on this website, just a sentence form like button.

Sad but true.

@darkest4 said:

It's starting to get annoying that Patrick is turning this site into his platform to push his political views. More than half his articles/videos/interviews are skewing everything to be about racism, sexism yadayada these days, it's getting to the point where somethings things are being twisted and overdramatized to fit whatever narrative he wants to push.

Giantbomb has always been a site I come to to just have fun and get away from all the drama, political correctness, seriousness and preaching and so on we're surrounded by from various sources, it kinda sucks that Patrick is single handedly changing that, especially because I like his other stuff when he's not up on his soapbox.

If this gets deleted we've gone full Orwell.

Posted by HellknightLeon

Maybe not work I care to partake in... even the start was off putting. Still... nothing wrong with talking about stuff like this. I take Scoops as a gap filler for the site, a "B team" sorta speak. The "main" team give us what they always have; fun, informative and engaging content that I love and enjoy... Scoops sends out information that you don't expect on this site(and may not like) but that's not to say it has no place. Maybe I will try to finish this interview later. Nothing wrong with trying new stuff and talking about "off base" things.

Posted by Zeeman155

@darkest4: It seems like there is the same amount good old fun, non-serious stuff on the site as there used to be. What Patrick decided to add to the site with serious socio-political stuff (which by the end of the day is relevant to video games and the people who are participating in the video game sphere) isn't taking away from the site or replacing potential content, it's just adding to it. And if it upsets you, then there's good news: you can chose not to participate in it, which is really REALLY easy to do. But if it's too hard to ignore and you think this is changing or influencing what the San Fran based team is doing, then I can't help you there because I think that's beyond reason.

Edited by declanusaur

@darkest4: It seems like there is the same amount good old fun, non-serious stuff on the site as there used to be. What Patrick decided to add to the site with serious socio-political stuff (which by the end of the day is relevant to video games and the people who are participating in the video game sphere) isn't taking away from the site or replacing potential content, it's just adding to it. And if it upsets you, then there's good news: you can chose not to participate in it, which is really REALLY easy to do. But if it's too hard to ignore and you think this is changing or influencing what the San Fran based team is doing, then I can't help you there because I think that's beyond reason.

Serious One sided social-political stuff.

Also If I had a gourmet meal, then took a dump on the side of the plate. The meal would still be great, doesn't mean I would like the dump being there.

Patrick does some great journalism, but more than half the stuff he does these days seems to be this SJW stuff :(

Posted by Dark_Lord_Spam

It's not an obvious brush off, I listen to and read his work. It's been a pattern that has existed for a long time and I see no reason why it would change.

If a topic comes up which involves a politically correct subject, it's very easy to assume his position on it, before hearing it. Even if you're someone that always agree's I still think it 's predictable. That doesn't mean I won't listen because I'm curious, just that I usually know what I'm going to get.

That's an odd evaluation, from my perspective. I've generally found Patrick to be the most accessible of the GB crew, the staff member most willing to internalize criticism, and generally a guy who seems to make a habit out of challenging his own preconceptions. It'd be interesting to hear your reasons for disengaging from his writing in that way.

It's super easy to be a social justice warrior in the gaming journalism realm. Those who agree circlejerk about it, those who disagree get shouted down as bigots. Game companies agree, even if they do nothing about it, because from a PR standpoint it's the best route, you can say you're going to do something and don't. It also seems to be what sites like polygon, kotaku, and increasingly on RPS, rely on because it's a great traffic draw.

"How the gaming industry oppresses woman" that as a headline will get traffic. It bring's in the SJW and those in the middle, and those who think it's all baby BS. The SJW's want to circlejerk, the middles are kinda curious, and the latter thinks "Oh, one of these, this should be good."

I mean think about it, Patrick almost always interviews people that will agree with him on that stuff, he never wants the opposing view point on social justice topics. Those that would and are friends won't, why get in an argument with your friend when you can easily agree and move on.

Social justice stuff is just an easy get out of jail free card these days. I'm not saying that's wrong, it's just ripe for use and abuse.

Take a moment to evaluate your language, here. The ways in which you use the term "social justice warrior." You say it's "easy to be" one. You say their chief motivation is "to circlejerk."

Everything here tells me you've reached a very specific conclusion: if someone can get passionate about issues of race, gender, class, or creed, you're no longer interested in hearing their opinion on the matter. You've decided they're all just as crass and cynical regarding their opponents, and to speak with them on even ground is to allow them some sort of nebulously negative privilege.

In the second paragraph, you establish an intellectual hierarchy. These "social justice warriors" are no better than lascivious, self-congratulatory morons. The "middles" are a sort of mythical innocent, people who have stumbled upon the debate somehow having not yet evaluated their own opinions and experience. Meanwhile, there are the master-disagreers, simultaneously deigning to engage the concerns (or "baby bullshit") of their lessers and remaining jovially aloof.

This isn't all to suggest that there is any argument which is not inherently infused with bias, but rather to say that you're undermining your own concerns through your contempt of the people you disagree with. There must be some basic compromise at the core of any discussion or both sides are doomed to shout over each other's shoulder until someone decides to resort to drastic, illogical means to prove their point. Patrick's article on internet discourse delves into what happens after many people reach that conclusion independently of one another, and I recommend reading it if you haven't already. It may convince you that being a "social justice warrior" isn't so painless as you believe.

Edited by Dark_Lord_Spam
@khann said:

@bbqbram said:

@khann said:

@dark_lord_spam said:
@declanusaur said:
@moonshadow101 said:

@declanusaur: The phrase "Social Justice Warrior" carries inherent judgement. It's not an "observation."

Maybe my understanding of the term is incorrect then. Social justice warrior to me is aggressive political correctness, political correctness to a fault, ect.

It's not your understanding of the definition so much as your understanding of the tone. When you use blanket terminology to refer to a person, whether it be "social justice warrior," "sensationalist," or even "troll," you imply that you've evaluated the worth of their argument before even hearing it. You're telling them that they're part of a faceless amalgam of incorrectness, and that their efforts to clarify a point are utterly lost on you. It's frustrating to serious participants in a conversation, and it makes you seem wilfully ignorant.

Call him passionate, call him overbearing, call him whatever as long as you don't use an obvious brush-off to seem superior.

Don't forget "straight white male".

I'm sorry :(

Or: straight white male who just wants to read about some goddamn video games.

I don't have a problem with the discussion, I just have a problem with not being able to have even a remotely critical view of any of the discussions that go on because I'm a "straight white male".

Anyone who disregards your view solely on the basis of you being a straight, white guy is being just as intellectually dishonest in the other direction, and I wouldn't want their help in making an argument. Take note, however, that sometimes that sort of unfortunate labeling gets used as short-hand for "experiential disadvantage," which is a much more relevant point in these types of discussions. Anyway, I have a feeling that your opinion won't be so derided as you think it might, so don't be afraid to raise your own concerns in a thoughtful way.

Edited by Hef

@orange_pork Yeah I agree people who don't pay shouldn't have opinions

Edited by Hef

The edit function isn't working for me, so I'm just going to make another post.

I don't see what all of the fuss is about. While I don't really agree with some of patrick articles, this is just two people talking about something that doesn't really happen a lot in games. He's not making this some huge issue or something bigger than it really is, they're just talking about the impact this had on them personally. I haven't been to kotaku in a long time because of a couple of people who I don't agree with most of the time, but I also don't bring up the term SJW at every possible moment. That has literally nothing to do with this podcast at all.

Posted by declanusaur

Take a moment to evaluate your language, here. The ways in which you use the term "social justice warrior." You say it's "easy to be" one. You say their chief motivation is "to circlejerk."

Everything here tells me you've reached a very specific conclusion: if someone can get passionate about issues of race, gender, class, or creed, you're no longer interested in hearing their opinion on the matter. You've decided they're all just as crass and cynical regarding their opponents, and to speak with them on even ground is to allow them some sort of nebulously negative privilege.

In the second paragraph, you establish an intellectual hierarchy. These "social justice warriors" are no better than lascivious, self-congratulatory morons. The "middles" are a sort of mythical innocent, people who have stumbled upon the debate somehow having not yet evaluated their own opinions and experience. Meanwhile, there are the master-disagreers, simultaneously deigning to engage the concerns (or "baby bullshit") of their lessers and remaining jovially aloof.

This isn't all to suggest that there is any argument which is not inherently infused with bias, but rather to say that you're undermining your own concerns through your contempt of the people you disagree with. There must be some basic compromise at the core of any discussion or both sides are doomed to shout over each other's shoulder until someone decides to resort to drastic, illogical means to prove their point. Patrick's article on internet discourse delves into what happens after many people reach that conclusion independently of one another, and I recommend reading it if you haven't already. It may convince you that being a "social justice warrior" isn't so painless as you believe.

The issue is, there is no discussion as you refer to. Patrick talks about the topics with those who agree with him. In general all this "controversial" stuff gets deleted by Rorie, conveying some mass consensus that everyone agree's with Patrick. There isn't any even ground in that.

The second paragraph is in such a form as to not be to lengthy. There is far more nuance to the social dynamics of politically correct issues and click baiting.

Also as I've read Patricks article. It doesn't cover those who form mobs about farcical harassment, that street goes both ways. Those who harass others in a form of stopping harassment doesn't help anything. He also points about people you meet on the street, not comparing to those on the internet. It also goes both ways, you can't get a million views and thousands of comments about how great your stuff is walking on the street.

Also getting passionate about those topics, most are crass and cynical about their opponents. They don't want to hear it. In this case it would be taken as an attack on credibility, not something that wants be heard.

"Don't be silent. Speak up for targets of harassment. They're victims, after all." The way I generally see this get done, is calling them stormfront, or racists, or bigots, or some other form.

Many people also get off on being victims because they can get blanket baseless support structure on the the web.

"A combination of legal, technological, and societal changes"

Legal? What does he want? Like in the EU where you can be thrown in jail for talking bad about certain religions on the internet? Yeah that sounds great.

Posted by Zeeman155

@declanusaur said:

@zeeman155 said:

@darkest4: It seems like there is the same amount good old fun, non-serious stuff on the site as there used to be. What Patrick decided to add to the site with serious socio-political stuff (which by the end of the day is relevant to video games and the people who are participating in the video game sphere) isn't taking away from the site or replacing potential content, it's just adding to it. And if it upsets you, then there's good news: you can chose not to participate in it, which is really REALLY easy to do. But if it's too hard to ignore and you think this is changing or influencing what the San Fran based team is doing, then I can't help you there because I think that's beyond reason.

Serious One sided social-political stuff.

Also If I had a gourmet meal, then took a dump on the side of the plate. The meal would still be great, doesn't mean I would like the dump being there.

Patrick does some great journalism, but more than half the stuff he does these days seems to be this SJW stuff :(

@declanusaur: If I had a gourmet meal with a dump next to it, I don't think that I would still enjoy the meal. That's gross and completely inapt level of analogy. It more like if you went into a gourmet restaurant that had a side dish you didn't like. Guess what? Don't order it. You can have your meal, walk out, and never worry about that side dish ever touching your palte. And this SJW term is bullshit, no matter how you spin it makes you sound like you think Patrick is on a high horse with his dogma being forcefully mandated upon us viewers like we have to take everything he says for granted. It's such negatively loaded term, where the user can rely on judging a person at face value and not make any commitment to partake in debate because their understanding of said person's opinion isn't worth analyzing. It's really irritating to see. The socio-political environment seems more and more relevant to video games recently, that's why there is so much discussion. And discussion is better than no discussion. Many people like it so sure maybe he'd continue with it. Your opinion isn't wrong and neither is Patrick's. But whatever, have the last word if you want, because I think this is just overblown and dumb how we have to have these conversations instead of real ones. Agree to disagree I suppose.

Posted by declanusaur

@declanusaur said:

@zeeman155 said:

@darkest4: It seems like there is the same amount good old fun, non-serious stuff on the site as there used to be. What Patrick decided to add to the site with serious socio-political stuff (which by the end of the day is relevant to video games and the people who are participating in the video game sphere) isn't taking away from the site or replacing potential content, it's just adding to it. And if it upsets you, then there's good news: you can chose not to participate in it, which is really REALLY easy to do. But if it's too hard to ignore and you think this is changing or influencing what the San Fran based team is doing, then I can't help you there because I think that's beyond reason.

Serious One sided social-political stuff.

Also If I had a gourmet meal, then took a dump on the side of the plate. The meal would still be great, doesn't mean I would like the dump being there.

Patrick does some great journalism, but more than half the stuff he does these days seems to be this SJW stuff :(

@declanusaur: If I had a gourmet meal with a dump next to it, I don't think that I would still enjoy the meal. That's gross and completely inapt level of analogy. It more like if you went into a gourmet restaurant that had a side dish you didn't like. Guess what? Don't order it. You can have your meal, walk out, and never worry about that side dish ever touching your palte. And this SJW term is bullshit, no matter how you spin it makes you sound like you think Patrick is on a high horse with his dogma being forcefully mandated upon us viewers like we have to take everything he says for granted. It's such negatively loaded term, where the user can rely on judging a person at face value and not make any commitment to partake in debate because their understanding of said person's opinion isn't worth analyzing. It's really irritating to see. The socio-political environment seems more and more relevant to video games recently, that's why there is so much discussion. And discussion is better than no discussion. Many people like it so sure maybe he'd continue with it. Your opinion isn't wrong and neither is Patrick's. But whatever, have the last word if you want, because I think this is just overblown and dumb how we have to have these conversations instead of real ones. Agree to disagree I suppose.

I dunno I'd still enjoy the meal.

Anyway it is one sided, there is no discussion, as I've pointed out Rorie deletes most of this stuff and Patrick only interviews those that agree with him. I'm not judging at face value, I'm judging based on following Patrick's work for years.

The only reason it's become more relevant is because advertising dollars are a competitive market and the stuff brings in clicks aka money. That's why it's so prevalent on other sites.

Polygon was new and many people are from the verge being that they are owned together. The verge was already way into that stuff.

Kotaku saw major declines in viewership when they changed their format and soon realized if they made the click bate articles in a similar format to their sister site, gawker, it would drive views, and it did.

RPS has saw an uptick due to money problems as well, however they tend to spread it to things other than just SJW stuff and it was mostly started by one guy, I think his names Matt. He made the SJW articles, the stuff was completely outrageous and over the top, but it brought in clicks because of that. Any smart business would increase the material based on that.

They great thing about Giant Bomb is the subscriber structure stops a lot of that. You don't get blatant plug pieces, or fire employee's because the badly reviewed a game that is paying for advertisement on the sight. A very good set of personalities helps as well.

Posted by WaywardGamer

All in all, you can't criticize an opinion that lacks nuance with an opinion that lacks nuance. Don't circlejerk about circlejerking. Don't complain about complaints. Do not make generalizations and extrapolations out of unanswered questions. Don't ask for equal representation of opinion when you aren't trying to have a conversation and would instead rather spend your time telling someone how awful or baseless or self-aggrandizing or narcissistic or idiotic you find their opinions unless you want to come off as such yourself. Honestly, an opinion that addresses character or motivation over the issue itself, while free to express itself, is also ludicrously shaky rhetoric.

Posted by declanusaur

All in all, you can't criticize an opinion that lacks nuance with an opinion that lacks nuance. Don't circlejerk about circlejerking. Don't complain about complaints. Do not make generalizations and extrapolations out of unanswered questions. Don't ask for equal representation of opinion when you aren't trying to have a conversation and would instead rather spend your time telling someone how awful or baseless or self-aggrandizing or narcissistic or idiotic you find their opinions unless you want to come off as such yourself. Honestly, an opinion that addresses character or motivation over the issue itself, while free to express itself, is also ludicrously shaky rhetoric.

So basically don't bother ever? Let one side talk and don't respond because the response will be bad?

Edited by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: Not at all. Try to talk about the issue itself rather than the person espousing the opinion. No argument will really ever be won by acting like someone's opinion is so worthless that they can be swept away with a label denoting them as some ineffectual, damp rag. That isn't rhetoric, it's just condescension.

I guess my last comment would have made more sense if I had elaborated. I didn't mean for anyone to get the impression I was telling them to shut up. What I said was to try not to sound whiny, and I'm sorry if that's too blunt, but saying that an opinion is basically useless grumbling without meaningfully addressing it is, in fact, useless grumbling. It's shaky rhetoric. And what is the use of arguing if you aren't really going to try and convince anyone?

Posted by declanusaur

@declanusaur: Not at all. Try to talk about the issue itself rather than the person espousing the opinion. No argument will really ever be won by acting like someone's opinion is so worthless that they can be swept away with a label denoting them as some ineffectual, damp rag. That isn't rhetoric, it's just condescension.

But as I said, you can't talk about the issue, that stuff gets deleted ASAP by Rorie. Only reason it's not done is the time of day.

Also, Patrick has been doing this stuff for years, there is no discussion to be had about the opinion, the issue is the increasing frequency.

It's not a issue that can be discussed easily, if you tell someone based on their history they go out of their way to talk about and find perceived social justice crimes, they would tell you to screw off. Or say they won't tolerate it. People didn't just say Patrick talks about SJW stuff out of no where, this has been a growing trend.

Posted by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: I don't really know about that. It seems to me that Rorie deletes jerks. I've seen some honest discussion happening in the comments sections from time to time, from both sides of the argument. Maybe this is because I don't frequent the forums, although I doubt how much of a meaningful difference there is between the two. Besides, isn't your dissent essentially proof that Rorie is not just deleting all contrary opinions?

Posted by patrickklepek

Post one podcast with someone who can speak with better authority than myself on the touchy subjects in Freedom Cry? Clickbait! Where were all you people when I posted a story earlier this week about a guy who spends his time taking screen shots of video game plants?! People see what they want to see.

Staff
Edited by declanusaur

Post one podcast with someone who can speak with better authority than myself on the touchy subjects in Freedom Cry? Clickbait! Where were all you people when I posted a story earlier this week about a guy who spends his time taking screen shots of video game plants?! People see what they want to see.

I really liked the story on plants. It was quite interesting read.

Edited by patrickklepek

@declanusaur said:

@patrickklepek said:

Post one podcast with someone who can speak with better authority than myself on the touchy subjects in Freedom Cry? Clickbait! Where were all you people when I posted a story earlier this week about a guy who spends his time taking screen shots of video game plants?! People see what they want to see.

I really liked the story on plants. It was quite interesting read.

My point being, if you were to add up the amount of stories I write and publish on any of the stuff people accuse me of spending my time obsessing over, you'd find it's a small fraction of what actually shows up on the site. But those stories blow up, and folks exaggerate them in their mind, as if they multiplied like rabbits. Don't feed an article with comments after midnight. It grows!

Staff
Posted by WaywardGamer

@patrickklepek: One could say that you're cultivating meaningful discussion.

Wait, that's not true. People just bicker for a few pages and leave off until next time because it makes a lot more sense to get bummed out about alternate opinions than to embrace them.

People should go and read the Marquis de Sade if they want to find someone to disagree with. G's. (Or agree with.)

Posted by declanusaur

@declanusaur said:

@patrickklepek said:

Post one podcast with someone who can speak with better authority than myself on the touchy subjects in Freedom Cry? Clickbait! Where were all you people when I posted a story earlier this week about a guy who spends his time taking screen shots of video game plants?! People see what they want to see.

I really liked the story on plants. It was quite interesting read.

My point being, if you were to add up the amount of stories I write and publish on any of the stuff people accuse me of spending my time obsessing over, you'd find it's a small fraction of what actually shows up on the site. But those stories blow up, and folks exaggerate them in their mind, as if they multiplied like rabbits. Don't feed an article with comments after midnight. It grows!

Eh, I think the issue is you're primarily the only one that does it. A lot of people would prefer to just have game material, not what's viewed as shoe horned social topics to many. Also Kotaku has a very noxious connotation to many gamer these days. There is guilt by association there for Evan, the vast majority probably have never heard of him, just saw the work "Kotaku".

Posted by HellknightLeon

@declanusaur said: But as I said, you can't talk about the issue, that stuff gets deleted ASAP by Rorie. Only reason it's not done is the time of day.

I hope that's not true. Its not a topic for this page... I just Super Bust a Move hope that's not true.

Posted by declanusaur

@declanusaur said: But as I said, you can't talk about the issue, that stuff gets deleted ASAP by Rorie. Only reason it's not done is the time of day.

I hope that's not true. Its not a topic for this page... I just Super Bust a Move hope that's not true.

He was quoted as saying:

"Guys, just keep in mind that I am quite literally paid to monitor these comments and ban people when you get dumb."

His interpretation of dumb has a very wide berth.

As I said it's mostly a sentence form like button, the comments that is.

Edited by weslash

so the only time a black person is featured on giantbomb it's for no other reason than being a black person? im not sure you thought this one through, patrik.

Edited by patrickklepek

@declanusaur said:

Eh, I think the issue is you're primarily the only one that does it. A lot of people would prefer to just have game material, not what's viewed as shoe horned social topics to many. Also Kotaku has a very noxious connotation to many gamer these days. There is guilt by association there for Evan, the vast majority probably have never heard of him, just saw the work "Kotaku".

How is talking about the depiction of slavery in a video game add-on focused on slavery shoehorned?

Staff
Edited by WaywardGamer

@weslash: I'm pretty sure that that is an extrapolation too many. You might be 'shoehorning' some ideas into this conversation.

Edited by Oldirtybearon

@patrickklepek said:

@declanusaur said:

I think the point on the Kotaku comment is that sites like them, such as RPS and polygon, are Social Justice Warrior central.

Much of Patricks work is Social Justice Warrior material...

Find a better way to phrase your objection. I'm done with the SWJ moniker. It won't be tolerated anymore.

Is it because the term has been co-opted by crazy people (mostly of Tumblr), or because it's become a term used for instant dismissal (Feminists, MRAs, Trolls, et cetera)?

Genuinely curious as to why this term has your hackles up, lately.

Also listening to the interview and it's pretty interesting. Dumptruck is a gold mine as usual.

Online
Posted by WaywardGamer

@oldirtybearon: I can't speak for Patrick, but I can answer your question from my camp. I think that, like any word or phrase or label that is used to categorize the reasoning behind someone's actions as if they were now some predictable, rotting squash vine rather than a voice of its own making, SJW is definitely in the sneering patronizer camp of word choice.

Posted by declanusaur

@declanusaur said:

Eh, I think the issue is you're primarily the only one that does it. A lot of people would prefer to just have game material, not what's viewed as shoe horned social topics to many. Also Kotaku has a very noxious connotation to many gamer these days. There is guilt by association there for Evan, the vast majority probably have never heard of him, just saw the work "Kotaku".

How is talking about the depiction of slavery in a video game add-on focused on slavery shoehorned?

The Ethics of Freedom Cry

moral, ethical, and emotional reactions

I'm going to explain the reasoning, not saying I fully agree with it.

Slavery these days is a topic that the majority of Americans are sick of talking about and consider it out played and over done. Many of the age groups concerned with video games were not around during the civil rights era and don't care about it because it's not a current issue in their minds.

Giant Bomb is generally a website that focus' on games, not socio political issues brought up in games. The slavery in that game is just a part of the story, not a fifty minute interview.

This material is the likes of which you would see on Kotaku, Polygon and RPS. Websites that increasing discuss this stuff to drive views by necessity through advertisement.

It get's viewed in this sense, you know that guy that within 30 seconds of meeting him he want's to talk about social injustice? Most people don't want to talk with that guy because they are there to party, not talk about some social issue.

I mean if you did this on multiple things, like the portrayal of Los Angelos in GTA V or the Portrayal of space faring in kerbal it would be different.

Also the articles on those other sights I mentioned, tend to be loaded with micro oppression stuff which is a turn off. This is getting lumped in by association.

This may not be as well articulated as I would like, and I could be missing stuff, but I believe this is the view.

Edited by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: I think Patrick understands this argument exactly, which is why he responded the way he did. I also think (I won't speak for Patrick. That's just rude.) that his response is thus meant with some measure of incredulousness. If media, art, or entertainment discusses a topic, why should others not delve into that discussion, especially if it's one they care about?

Also, I have to say that while I'm sure some sites might find it useful to be click-clacked on like little mousetraps, there is an essential problem with diluting the reasoning for any one action or series of actions into a single variable. Then you're in danger of generalizing, and your argument is in danger of sounding hollow or tone-deaf. You're at that point offering a counterpoint rather than a criticism. It's like being a mind reader that will touch your palm for a minute and tell you that you'll be in love at some point next month. That hardly defines the character of your love or the exact nature of it. For all you know that might mean you'll have eaten a pretty slammin' slice of quiche lorraine.

Edited by declanusaur

@declanusaur: I think Patrick understands this argument exactly, which is why he responded the way he did. I also think (I won't speak for Patrick. That's just rude.) that his response is thus meant with some measure of incredulousness. If media, art, or entertainment discusses a topic, why should others not delve into that discussion, especially if it's one they care about?

I thin the point is the expansion pack is not designed to be a discussion on slavery, Patrick made it one.

Edited by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: This is the essential disagreement then, which is that a piece has to make overt commentary for it to become a proper space for discussion of the topic. This is not the case, and this is not how culture works. We understand culture better through all of the diverging perspectives it offers. Regardless of whether or not the team was trying its hardest to be politically correct, this is still a representation of someone's perspective, and perspective invites discussion. There is no point at which something must be made for discussion. And if everything that was worth talking about was made for it then we would all be guarded sociopaths, waiting for someone's face to crack.

When we make the point of releasing something to the public, it isn't necessarily ours anymore. When you read a book, you own your interpretation of it just as much as the writer owns the words.

Telling people that your work is 'not meant for critics' is a little craven if you ask me.

  • 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4