chrissedoff's forum posts

#1 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

@oldirtybearon said:

counterpoint: Americans follow and watch Al Jazeera because they believe it to be a unbiased, first hand source for news on the Middle East.

They certainly don't have the greatest reputation, either.

Does Al Jazeera really have a bad reputation in the US? Because as far I can tell that's not the case in Europe. They probably have different editorial teams though, so maybe the stuff they put out over there is more controversial. Regardless, I don't think that's a great analogy. Even if Al Jazeera doesn't have a great reputation in the States, they're still a legitimate news organisation. The PLO have no such legitimacy. A better analogy would be someone following a Minuteman group in order to keep up to date with immigration reform.

Yeah, Al Jazeera America is honestly the most objective and professional cable news station in the US. But it's funded by the Qatari royal family and has an Arabic name so the vast majority of Americans seem to think it's news by and for terrorists, which is hilarious. I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera to accurately report on the many fucked-up things that go on in Qatar itself, but it's not an agenda-driven hack operation like RT is.

Also, Al Jazeera Arabic is, to my knowledge, fairly well-respected and is the only reasonably objective source of news available in many countries in the Middle East. Like, honestly, isn't it really fucked up and racist that most people think that Al Jazeera is an untrustworthy news source because it is based in the Middle East and employs actual Arab journalists to report on Arab countries? I mean, in this part of the world, we trust the reporting on the Middle East from places like NBC, which is owned by GE the a defense contractor and then we're super skeptical of Al Jazeera's motives because we assume that the concept of objectivity is foreign to Middle Easterners.

Anyways, back on subject, when it comes to what the developers of Hatred are all about, I don't know if the wait-and-see approach is caution or willful blindness. Like, obviously some of these guys have indicated at least a vague interest in Polish far-right causes with their online activity and they're also developing a game about mass murder, the trailer for which prominently features a white man killing visible minorities, women and cops. I understand that people don't want to make a conclusion about what motivated this development team to make this game, but I feel like there's just enough info out there that now it should actually be up to them to prove that they're not completely horrible people. The people who have added up what we know about the game and its developers so far and come to the assumption that there's probably something truly rotten there are not necessarily the people we need to worry about. Focusing attention on the supposed witch hunt does a really good job of protecting Hatred and its dev team from scrutiny and there's way too much questionable shit going on to give them the benefit of the doubt.

#3 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@jakob187: Right, so when David Jaffe the adult man and popular video game designer gets offended by people criticizing his video game, he's entitled to throw a public tantrum calling people out by their username and telling them to go fuck themselves, but we're not entitled to point out the fact that he's behaving like a big dumb manbaby because...why? I'm guessing he took the video down because it wasn't until after he posted it that he realized that people aren't charmed by grownups throwing childish hissyfits, no matter how flamboyant they are.

#4 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@hollitz said:

@slag said:

Lets take this full circle

Jaffe's Reaction to GB forum's Reaction to Jaffe's Reaction Video to GB's comments on the Trailer Reaction!


Would have been more interesting to see Jaffe respond to the bombcast comments about the game. Nothing said in these comments sections is anywhere near as damning as the GB crew's reaction to the game.

Yeah, I don't think anyone ever stops to think about how twisted that is. People's idea of "winning" in their interactions with people over the Internet is to prove that all that acting like an asshole wasn't them sharing their sincerely-held opinions or having genuine emotional responses. No, it was all cool and calculated manipulation designed to make total strangers feel angry or sad or ashamed, all done out of pure sadism. Like, congratulations, you're doing what a sociopath does. The rest of us sure are suckers for being normal people who don't abuse people for fun.

#5 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

This is some childish shit.

#6 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@jesus_phish, you're right that Tekken is full of idiotic nonsese already. Presumably, people who like Tekken enjoy how ridiculous the characters are, so this barely even pushes the envelope of stupidity.

But wow, this Katsuhiro Harada guy is a dick. Sure, everyone who doesn't like his cutesy lolita catgirl character want nothing but skin-headed muscle-men. Just like how everyone who doesn't like your technical death metal band only listens to One Direction. That kind of nonsense belongs in the mouth of hormonal teenage boys posting Internet comments anonymously, not a grown man with a real job. He ultimately came off as the asshole here, because fans whining about the current creative direction of a long-running franchise is just something that's going to happen, no matter what you do. The appropriate response is to remind yourself that you're the one who actually decides what goes into the game, so you don't have to sweat the opinions of the people who disagree with you. What you don't do is prove that you're an even bigger crybaby than they are by publicly whining about criticism from fans.

#7 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

Has anything Square has done in the past decade indicated that they aren't genuinely this stupid?

#8 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

Bad Boys 2, Torque, Cobra and any other movies that Jeff really likes. I've wanted to watch some of these movies just out of morbid curiosity about why Jeff has such bad taste, but I can't make it through a bad movie unless I'm either mocking it with friends & family or if I'm listening to a MST3K/Rifftrax kind of thing.

Also wouldn't mind them doing commentary on the Highlander movies. I'd love to hear people react to seeing Highlander 2 for the first time after seeing the first one.

#9 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

I don't really buy the "they should hire the most qualified person" discourse. This is a personality-based website (and that's why I love it), so I think they should hire based on personality rather than pure qualifications. I'd rather see an interesting person with the aforementioned 5 years' experience than someone boring who's been around forever.

(and yes, I think it's time to add diversity to the team.)

I agree. I think people ignore the fact that diversity in hiring helps media sites grow. People are more likely to visit a site if there are people they identify with working there.

Also, it really depresses me that all the whining over the years about how Giant Bomb lacked diversity because they didn't have a a resident "otaku" seemed to have its legitimacy questioned less than any time when people have pointed out that Giant Bomb has a conspicuous lack of women (aka the other 50% of the world's population) represented on staff.

#10 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@jimbo: In front of a grand jury, the bar for evidence is extremely low. A prosecutor can introduce hearsay and all kinds of purely circumstantial evidence. All the prosecutor needs to do is demonstrate probable cause. The prosecutor can even change the charge to anything he or she wants to after securing the indictment. The autopsy report by itself is well beyond the standard one would typically need to get an indictment in most cases. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fact that Michael Brown is dead and Darren Wilson admits to having shot him should make this pretty much a slam dunk for any prosecutor worth his salt to convince a grand jury to indict. In this case, the prosecutor introduced all kinds of evidence that supports Wilson's claims, allowed Wilson himself to testify and questioned the eyewitness' testimony. The prosecutor is under no obligation to provide one iota of evidence that doesn't support his case. Doing so is unusual. This guy's no rookie. He threw the case on purpose.