OppressiveStink's forum posts

#1 Posted by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

I can't help but notice that there a lot of classism in this thread.

At exactly what point is someone "too rich"? Is it upper middle class? Is it a store manager? Is it a district manager? Is it a regional manager? Is it only reserved for CEOs? Do athletes count? Movie stars? Rock stars? Doctors? Scientists?

And who decides who makes too much money, and who should feel some sort of personal shame if they're not giving enough of it to their employees or other people that they work with? And who decides how much they should give back?

Because if you think any business owners or CEOs are just going to cut their own salaries so they don't have to do any "employee restructuring," due to a minimum wage increase, I think you're mistaken.

But as long as any of these people are spending their money, or investing in the stock market, or whatever else--basically anything other going all Scrooge McDuck and literally hording their cash in a giant vault--isn't their money helping the economy?

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rock-stars/steven-tyler-net-worth/

Stephen Tyler: 130 million.

I'd call it less classism and more realism. As I've typed before, we've had 30 years of supply side economics. This means that businesses haven't really had to compete for labor for quite a few years. Furthermore, most of their taxes have been foisted on to the people who're doing the actual working(this is called corporate welfare, and it costs us more than human welfare annually.)

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html

Then we have SCOTUS to thank for actually giving the wealthy and rich a louder voice in our political process, after all, it wasn't poor and middle-class people who put off-shore bank tax loopholes in the tax code! We've seen time and time again, large businesses and wealthy people running roughshod through or political process with their greater spending clout.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

CEOs and Business leaders SHOULD feel shame in not paying their employees more. Many of the people on foodstamps are people who are employed full time. This is a fucking travesty!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/02/04/note-to-newt-many-food-stamp-families-are-working/

You ask who should decide they make too much money? I fucking say we do. We live in a goddamn democracy, so we get to decide how businesses run on our goddamn soil. Oh wait, I forgot, our politicians are bought and paid for(note that John Boehner's #2 donator is Comcast, which has been trying to buy Time Warner and end Net neutrality on the first link, and see John Boehner's response in the second.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003675

http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/15/comcast-gave-republican-leader-4x-more-money-than-google-now-he-opposes-net-neutrality/

Don't forget, businesses have been colluding with each other over labor too! Trying their best to make the labor market non-competitive! Wage fixing at it's finest!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/apple-google-hiring-conspiracy-bigger-initially-suspected-1441547

Lastly, the rich and businesses spending leads to this "trickle-down" theory of economics(read supply-side) and I've written on it in this post before. Yes, them spending money helps the economy. But so does everyone's. There are way more non-rich people than rich people and they have a greater desire for commodity(goods and services.) So if you put more money in the hands of the working class and poor, they will buy more commodity simply because their thirst for it is greater. This means more money for everyone and more opportunity for business(can't sell something if no one can buy it, thanks Henry Ford!)

The reason why there's so much backlash on making a minimum wage hike is because the place that will suffer the most is the stock market. That's right, there is ONE victim to this minimum wage hike, profits. The people who make their living by investing in businesses(read: the wealthy) have a vested interest in keeping employee wages down.

To answer your question about people investing in the stock market helping the economy, no, it doesn't really help. The stock market is at the highest it's been, ever, but it hasn't translated into any real job growth. We're struggling to get back to the place these unregulated businesses kicked us from before the housing bubble.

I can't help but feel like your post comes from a place where you haven't really paid attention to the things around you.

#2 Posted by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

Listen guys, this is why raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation is good.

Desire. For. Commodity.

Whether you're a 99% or a 1%, you have a desire and a need for commodity. As an example, we all need tooth brushes and toothpaste. The 99% of people need more tooth brushes than the 1%, simply because there are more people in the 99%. As that 99% has had it's wages stagnate thanks largely to the credit industry and supply-side economics, some of these people get to decide if they buy a Toothbrush -or- toothpaste.

A decline in liquid assets to the majority means a decline in the purchasing power of that majority. This means less money for everyone, less money people can spend on commodity, which in turn, means less jobs for people to work at. It's also the main contributor to the destruction of unions, you cannot strike when you cannot afford to strike(and don't fucking come to me with the statement that unions are bad, if you have a goddamn chamber of commerce in your city, that is just a union of businesses.)

People often pull out the dual boogyman of inflation and job loss, this is indeed a boogyman, used in an attempt to keep the current economic situation(one that has been going on for roughly 30 years, thanks Reagan!) stagnate.

Inflation happens and it happens no matter what, simply because it happens by design as our population goes up. In fact, the reason we're in this mess is because our wages did not increase with inflation because US businesses did this doublethink bullshit that you're seeing in this thread. Negotiating your wages? Ha. Negotiate below minimum wage to get experience, okay, I guess we'll just be picking up the tab for the rest of their living expenses then, ehh?

That's discounting the fact of a recent Forbes article speaking on this topic about how competitive forces have more impact on the price of an item then overhead is. Simply put, it's more about Burger King's prices to McDonalds than it is the price of making a hamburger.

As far as business losses go, if the only reason your business can exist by the sweat of underpaid labor, I would state that perhaps your business isn't one that needs to survive. There is a saying, if there's someone who has money to buy things, there will be a person who will sell it to them, someone here linked poverty to the minimum wage with some fucking impressive mental gymastics, when the simple fact is, there are no stores in disadvantaged communities, simply, because there is no money there. It has very little to do with labor costs.

#3 Edited by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

#yesallwomen was indeed a response to #notallmen, as a counter to the common argument used to shutdown female expressions of displeasure or concern with many problems they face. Complaints about issues of larger misogyny in society are often dismissed as not worth complaining about because they don't cover all men. Obviously, not all men are misogynistic or hateful, but all women do have to put up with concerns and troubles no one should have to face in silence.

It's rare to have a discussion about misogyny, women's rights, rape, etc. without someone at some point interjecting that none of it has to do with them because it is "not all men".

It's a difficult thing to discuss, simply because every single person in the world is going to paint it from their own point of view. When people deal with this kinda thing, it's easy to let your feelings take over and make posts based on knee-jerk reactions.

That being said, it would be pretty easy to gather up negative sentiment for just about anything. Collectively, human beings have been pretty shitty to each other. I mean, you could probably find some pretty choice remarks at stuff like "#shortguys" or "#killallmen" and make a similar statements about other groups of people.

As someone who considers themselves an egalitarian, it's disheartening to see what broad generalizations can do to honest discourse. You need all parties ready to hash things out if true change is to be affected.

#4 Edited by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

@theegravedigger: So I'm just going down my game library and see if I can point out some good examples. From what I've noticed, there are less relationships in games than you'd think and even less of the relationship being the prize for winning the game. I'm just going to list some of the ones that have better relationship stories and see if it's what you meant!

Hotline Miami: A game that shows more than tells, you save someone who's essentially been left to die. As it progresses you see the impact you each have on eachother's lives.

Grandia: Character's relationship matures slowly, first regarded as a mentor, then a peer, then a lover.

Gitaroo man: Guy falls in love with a girl, successfully woos her(with music), then finds out she works for the bad guy and you have to defeat her.

Bulletstorm: Start out as begrudging allies, but learn to trust and respect each-other.

#5 Edited by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

@believer258: Well, if you really want to get into the Abrahamic god, then supposedly, somewhere, he is a real flesh-and-blood person, at least, enough of a person to forge us in his image. My argument was less based on abrahamic religions, and more based on the statement that there was this "any god" that had influence on this world(trying to tackle the argument of those who would worship as a hedge.) As much as we do not broadcast news on the wars of ants, I believe a god of this nature(if existing,) would not give a lick about creatures that last less than a blink of an eye in the purview of the universe. How could such a being even understand having a finite life? Needing to eat? Sitting to shit?

Sure, religions can try to write that idea away in their texts and scrolls, but I write this for thinking people. Ones who don't take the scrawling of long-dead, self-insert, Jesus- fanfiction writers as a word-for-word truth.

#6 Posted by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

@tearhead: I figure that I would throw my hat in the ring to explain how I came about my beliefs!

There have been thousands of gods in the pantheon of human deities, this is a fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager, as his wager supposes there is only two(50/50 chance.) Now, logically, if one god is real, that brings the possibility of all gods being real, as there's about the same amount of information supporting their existence. So, in a game where there's just about two thousand chances to get it wrong, it would be hell of a gamble just to pray to one(this, is also a fallacy as more than one may exist,) yet this is exactly what every theist does, every day of their lives, gamble on which version of the infinite they support. As an atheist, I abstain from this gamble(and gambling in general,) and I feel a thinking man(or woman!) of faith would have a hard time justifying worship to a god that may or may not exist(even in the realm of the possibility that a god or gods exist.)

Let's play devil's(ha!) advocate and say there is a god, a single one and it's a creature that exists in the same sphere of influence as we do. You have a being who's mind is as immense, to consider solar systems and planets, universes and dimensions, mountains and trees. This is the same creature that is supposed to give a shit about what books you read, what you wear and who you bang out with. In my mind, a being who thinks in those terms wouldn't be able to reconcile their experiences with ours. We'd resemble more an insect than a peer(specially on the time frame we live on,) and when do most men consider the point of view of an ant? To have that feeling that there has to be something out there that gives a damn about what you do, you in particular, is fundamentally a delusional vanity unique to humanity.

It's a comforting thought that if someone's good, that there's a hand waiting at the precipice of the unknown, to cradle us to everlasting peace.The more likely possibility is, we stare, constantly, into the gaping maw of oblivion. Some people can come to terms that they're really nothing that special in the scheme universe, and then, some people are theists.

#7 Posted by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

Oh yeah, I wanted to share how I go about getting new games(by new, I mean old.)

By most measures, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to finding games. I tend to avoid internet auctions and instead try to hunt the games I want out locally. Whenever I travel to a new town, I see if they have any independent video game stores and see if I can't find something interesting. I usually don't share my tips and tricks, but I'm feeling particularly jovial tonight, so I thought I'd share.

My rules for game hunting:

1) Never Pay Full(collectors) Price. Hunt for bargains, otherwise you go broke.

2) Never double dip to sell, if you have it already, leave it for another hunter.

3) Don't over-farm a location this can lead to the owners changing their prices to meet the internet's inflated rates.

4) Always defer to children. If a child is shopping in the same place you are and wants the same game you do, let them have it. These will be the people making our games in the future.

5) Don't buy anything you can't lend out. Games are meant to be played with your friends.

My tips: Garage Sales, Swap Meets, Thrift Stores. Avoid Goodwill, they sell all their good stuff online and their site is constantly sniped. Also, look for old video rental stores, they sell their rentals for cheap(if you can find some!)

The best time to stock up on games is at the end of a generation. Game prices move in a sine wave. They start to deteriorate as soon as they come out, they hit the bottom as the generation ends and then they spike up as the method and means to play the game evaporates. 360 and PS3 games will still command a bit of a price for about a year, bit slowly go down as we reach into the next generation. PS2, PSP and DS games are hitting the cheapest they'll ever be, so stock up on those, especially if you can find some stuff at Gamestop. They're selling them for dirt cheap.

Hope this helps some of my fellow game hunters. Remember to respect other hunters, as the majority of them do it for the love of games.

#8 Edited by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

I have over 2000 physical games ranging from around 32 platforms. Two arcade machines, a Neo-Geo and a Tengen Tetris.

I'd say my highlights are, a Turbo Duo with Castlevania X, Persona, KOF2k3, Snatcher, Dragon Force, Guardian Heroes, LUNAR, LUNAR II, the pantheon of SNES RPGs...Pocky and Rocky 2... erm...Tomba.

I don't have any of those really really rare games like Stadium Events, but quite a few of the rarer ones.

#9 Edited by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

The problem with online video games isn't that guys treat women differently, it's because for the most part, women and men are treated with the same derision in online video games, the genders just react to it differently.

The competitive environment of online games breeds a certain type of trash talk (one could describe as vile,) and all participants are treated the same: ie shitty. Because this has gone on so long, some view it as a rite of passage, so if women want to participate in this environment, they expect them to deal with the same bullshit.

Where as, generally speaking (obviously, and from my observation,) female competition does not have this level of abuse considered normal. Thus a stronger reaction to the usual onlime bullshit.

I'm sorry to say, but unless there is a no tolerance approach (which is nearly impossible to apply fairly and consistently,) expect shitty stuff to happen online in perpetuity.

#10 Posted by OppressiveStink (355 posts) -

As a 32 year old man who consumes content from other men in their 30s about video games and still manages to keep a wife and a career, I would day it's more the person than the hobby.

Besides, video games are bigger than movies in the entertainment field and no one would give a shit about you watching movies.