ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

@milkman said:

@athleticshark said:

@milkman: I'm not about to justify the news but at some point these are people making the decisions. Our culture and our country.

Also generalizing and relating the founding of our country to rioting leaves me speechless. A little thing called the revolutionary war happened.

Obviously, I would prefer if people didn't riot. But I'm not going to let that distract from the real issue here.

I'm not sure your point with your last statement. The United States of America was literally founded on riots and protest over taxes.

Just reading through the thread to catch up, and I can't help but comment on this. Comparing what happened in colonial America to Ferguson is disingenuous. I assume you are alluding to events such as the Boston Tea party, an event with a clear goal and message. Ferguson is chaos and looting as the family of the victim calls for peace. The concerns of the colonists were being aired for years before war broke out (ex: Virginia house of burgesses). These grievances were levied against a Parliamentary Monarchy, which is a far cry from means in which people in our society today can protest/change government. The events in Ferguson are a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice.

If Ferguson is in some way equivalent to the founding of the United States, then what protest isn't it comparable to.

#2 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

Just to be clear, support for Windows 7 does not end in Jan 2015. "Mainstream support" ends, but the OS will be getting security updates until 2020.

To this day I still don't understand the people that hate the Win8 interface. The desktop view is exactly the same as Windows 7. The start menu is used to pin program shortcuts just like the start menu in Win7, except the menu is full screen now. To each his own, I suppose.

#3 Edited by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

There is no reason for them to sell 3 day passes. They make more money if everyone buys three one day passes. I wonder how many they even offer.

#4 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

The Wyatt thing should have happened after the match. I don't understand how yet another fucky finish to a PPV main event is anything other than pathetic at this point. It is the go to thing for shitty creative. If Ambrose wins that match, what happens? Rollins doesn't look weaker, fuck you if you think so. When has taking a single loss, especially one in the Cell, ever made a guy look weak?

I agree. They have Mick Foley come out on RAW and talk about how Hell in a Cell can/will define a person's career, hype the feud up for months (Shield broke up in April) and then we get a shit no finish once again.

I've never been closer to ending my WWE Network Sub. That's cool that other people here enjoyed it, but I honestly feel like I could have just got the recap online instead of spending 3 hours watching the event.

#5 Edited by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

Everything about that main event was great . If you're whining about it , nothing will please you .

Yes, people who don't share your opinion are whiners. Sorry, but the ending sucked and ruined what could have been a classic match.

#6 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 posts) -

I am not one to complain about WWE shows, as I usually enjoy them no matter what (low standards), but that was easily one of if not the worse endings to a WWE PPV I have ever seen. I feel like I just wasted my night watching this.

#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 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 :)

#8 Posted by ManMadeGod (1625 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.

#9 Edited by ManMadeGod (1625 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.

#10 Edited by ManMadeGod (1625 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.