ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

@marokai said:

@courage_wolf: I feel like arguing over privilege is one of the many reasons the "conversation" goes in circles. This dialogue would be several orders of magnitude more productive if people focused on specific, constructive examples of what could be done to address grievances rather than arguing about the argument. Pointing out privilege is not an invalid thing to do, but it's also a fairly academic point that doesn't accomplish much but put people on the defensive. It distracts from making actual efforts to solve problems and help people because we're then arguing over different philosophical concepts instead of focusing on actual inequalities and actual victims.

It would be like if I started every conversation over gay rights by pointing out heterosexual privilege. Do I personally feel a bit bummed out when I look around me, every day, and see straight couples who can freely express themselves, hold hands, freely mention their partners without fear of judgment? I do. It hurts. It's a daily reminder of how far we still need to go. But I gain nothing from beating people over the head with this that have done nothing wrong and respect me as a person as much as I respect them, and in the conversation over my rights as a person, I keep things productive by pointing out direct examples of what can be done to solve inequality, and do my best not to place blame or sound bitter about it. It sometimes does take effort, but it's also the best way of actually bringing people together.

I also feel like it's sort of dehumanizing. Like looking at a rich person and saying "You can't possibly understand the plight of the poor, your opinion here is invalid!" Perhaps it is more likely to be wrong, but I'm unsure of how much it helps to rob people of their agency like that, through no wrongdoing of their own. There are many wealthy people who understand that plight, afterall, and do their best to contribute to the financial security of the worse-off. Do I make allies by painting with a broad brush in this way? I doubt it.

People may call this "tone policing" but it's not fair to whip out that line whenever someone asks you to be more respectful. Tone policing is a very real thing, but it's also not a universal response. Not every venue is as knock-down-drag-out as Twitter, and being wronged in society does not justify every action or word. In places like this, we're encouraged to have more prescriptive, constructive, long-form discussion, so getting emotional and riled up isn't particularly productive, which is why people ask for more welcoming dialogue. We can't treat this as a war, we simply need to be there for victims, listen to them, and encourage them. We're all here to learn and refine our thoughts, so we should actually be doing that, instead of arguing about arguing.

I was going to type up a long response to this, but I have to go. Just wanted to say I thought this was an excellent post. You get...... 2 cookies :)

#2 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

I don't need your help sir, on how to form arguments.

Something I've learned being a public figure on WIT, is many men are just not going to hear the message. It's easier to do nothing. It's easier to say you don't like the tone, or lazily point to some flaw you declare in the argument, or just call the woman a name.

Well, it may very well be true that many men are not going to hear the message, and that doing nothing is easier. But those points really are not relevant to what I was talking about. It's not about lazily pointing out "some" flaw, it's pointing out an egregious error in thinking. Myself and many in this topic are sympathetic with you, but when you say "People are more complex than a single paragraph" and then go on to slam "gamers" and "gaming community" as if it's a homogeneous entity, it comes off as inconstant. That's all.

I'm signing off for the night, but thanks for spending time to talk about this issue. It's not going away any time soon.

#3 Edited by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

@spacekatgal said:

@notlikelytocare said:

@spacekatgal: I feel you are judging the many by the actions of the few. Let's be frank, this isn't an issue with "men" this is an issue with a select few people who like to take things too far, and the people they effect.

Overgeneralizing does no one any good, and only serves to further the issues at hand.

I completely reject this. This is a false debating point that gamers use to refuse any kind of accountability.

Look, I get that a woman coming into a space that you consider yours makes you defensive. I know it's easier not to think about this stuff. And I understand that bringing it up makes you feel guilty, full of shame and puts you on the defensive. I'm sorry - I know it's uncomfortable.

This excuse enables inaction. It stops you from looking inside yourself to ask what part you play.

Do you know in all my time advocating WIT, I have almost NEVER talked to a man that thought he was part of the problem? It's always other people.

You can reject it if you want, but that poster is correct. You are painting a massive brush. Over half of US households own a video game console: that's ~150M people. What % of those are harassing women on twitter? Even if every single person at PAX was a misogynist (assuming 50,000 attendants), that's still far less that 1% of the total. Would definitely strengthen your argument if you avoid generalizing.

#4 Edited by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

"a collection of people who don't even know what they actually want other than to simply disrupt you as much as they possibly can"

That's all GG is at this point. There are no ethical issues being uncovered, be it now or at any point since the movement started. That's pretty much when I stopped caring. But thanks to the power of the internet, a handful of people can keep the "movement" alive despite 99.99% of game players not giving a shit. I don't even think a comment on this was necessary, but I don't have a problem with anything said by Jeff.

I think Anita Sarkeesian's videos offer nothing but weak arguments, but it really is amazing how uncomfortable she has made some people feel. I will never understand why people feel the need to silence others they don't agree with. Maybe she really was onto something........

Anyway, back to Smash Brothers.

#5 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

The reason I have no been able to get behind GG is that I simply do not have strong feelings towards the gaming press. Youtube/Twitch has made the vast majority of these websites irrelevant imo, so if [insert gaming website] wants to write a dumb article, then I'm not going to get upset. Chances are I don't visit their website anyway.

#6 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

Being waiting for this version of Wolf Among Us for 12 months now, since it was announced last October. Game better be good.

#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

@manmadegod said:

@kindgineer said:

Maybe its already been beaten into the ground, but are they skipping Windows 9?

Yup. The idea is that this is such an improvement from 8, that it's not just Windows 9. This is 2 generations ahead. More than anything it creates buzz and free marketing around the product, as people want to see why they skipped 9.

This is the company that decided to call their third Xbox "Xbox One".

And came up with the Xbox 360 aka 360 degrees of entertainment, the entire package, the one device that does it all. And to think people are getting paid big money to create this stuff.

#8 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

Maybe its already been beaten into the ground, but are they skipping Windows 9?

Yup. The idea is that this is such an improvement from 8, that it's not just Windows 9. This is 2 generations ahead. More than anything it creates buzz and free marketing around the product, as people want to see why they skipped 9.

#9 Edited by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

I think what they have shown so far for Windows 10 is great, and I will be upgrading my Win7 device with it.

Windows 8 is fine, and has better boot times and is less resource intensive than 7, which is great for laptops. At this point I would say stick with 7 and upgrade to 10 next year, since it looks to be better than Windows 7/8 is just about every way.

#10 Posted by ManMadeGod (1575 posts) -

@raven10 said:


As far as being a Nazi, I am saying that looking at the general political ideologies of many Republicans they tend to fall in line with the Nazi stances on many of those issues. The thing is that the Nazis' fiscal policies don't follow modern conservative/liberal lines. They had policies that today would be considered borderline communist, and ones that would be considered borderline libertarian. So really neither party can be considered a less extreme Nazi. But when most people think of Nazis they are thinking of social policies not fiscal policies and in that sense The Republican party is for all intents and purposes a nationalist party just like the Nazis. Their stances on immigration and keeping the purity of the American people is all but identical to the comments being made by Neo Nazi movements across Europe today and by Hitler in the 1930's. The heavy focus on military development and use of fear as a means of control also falls in line with Nazi policies. They mainly differentiate themselves when it comes to certain socialist matters. The Nazis made use of a lot of national support programs that the Republicans absolutely would not support. Now the thing is that these days the Republican Party is almost a coalition of two different parties. There is a massive difference between the fiscal conservatives you find in the Northeast and Midwest, and the social conservatives you find in the Southeast, Texas, and Arizona. The former are absolutely nothing like Nazis. The latter are the group that I think resemble Nazis to a frightening degree in regards to certain social beliefs.

Don't want to derail this thread and talk about American politics, so I will just say this and leave:

  1. Citizens United had to do with the court's interpretation of the 1st amendment.
  2. Being nationalistic is not inherently racist.
  3. When most people think of the Nazis they think of genocide. The Republicans in no way support genocide.
  4. I have never seen a major Republican talk about "keeping the nation pure". In fact their national platform supports reform for increasing the number of educated immigrants into the United States. The party does take a hard stance against illegal immigration (while actually doing nothing about it while Bush was President), with the most radical among them looking to built a giant wall on the boarder while deporting illegals. Contrast this with Germany in the 1940s which looked to purge those deemed un-german by building a complex system of death camps. Again, you can not compare the two. At all. Go on youtube and watch clips of Hitler talking about the jews and then watch a clip of.......... john boehner. I'm not sure how you gained this opinion but, it seems pretty far off from reality.