The Cracked Thread

in my case why it bother me the whole "slept your way" being just a minor thing, i can get is not fair for her to have her nude picture in the net

but aside for that, i really dont like how she try to sabotage the whole TFYC and the back up when thing goe complicated, is more jarring where there are minority working in the project, i reach a itsallaboutme mentality

Im like seanbaby but hes not even in my top 3. i love most of stuff, but his mma stuff i just dont care about.

i like david wong, except when is about video games because he get full strawmen, but is other article are good

I like John Cheese's stuff.

Storyyeller: "Seems neutral" is not the same thing as "confirmed neutral and accurate".

I just said don't. Treat what I present the same as what anyone else presents.

And I get the exact opposite impression. But neither of us would consider our sources biased and our evidence misleading.

Thus why further scrutiny is so important.

when cheese goes full cheese and the article is mostly jokes its great. like the one where he describes his dinner date with his wife shaniqa childpuncher.

I guess Michael Swaim would be my favorite, with Seanbaby a close second. Christina H is nice too.

In what way does her sex life affect anyone outside the people she is sleeping with?

In Quinn's case, even if the accusation were true - a point that is entirely a matter of conjecture at this point, as the only evidence she slept with anyone in exchange for a positive review are the scathing claims of a jilted ex-lover, someone who is about as far from an unbiased party as you could possibly get; it is absolutely shocking the lengths that people will go to hurt an ex - it still raises the question, why is this the matter that everyone cares about? Why is this the rallying cry?

Looking isn't the problem. Staring is. Women notice that.

I like the way my colleague put it: "When guys turn and look at me as I pass, that's fine. When they then turn around and watch me leave, that's not okay."

I miss Brockway. He doesn't write articles much anymore.

John Cheese and Chris Bucholz have taken over as favorites for me; especially Bucholz's "advice" columns.

edited 18th Sep '14 9:25:56 PM by TobiasDrake

yeah his advice collums are great. brockway was good too i remember. as is christina.

I'm also a fan of Daniel O'Brien's articles.

I absolutley love Bucholz's "5 Steps to Attack Children with a Stick."

His article on dad jokes was hilarious.

Storyyeller: "Seems neutral" is not the same thing as "confirmed neutral and accurate".

I'm not saying it is, but when someone keeps asking me to read it like they think it will convince me of something, I expect it to be more ... convincing.

edited 18th Sep '14 11:25:13 PM by storyyeller

I'm curious, what's the difference, really?

A couple pages back Ninjaclown linked to a Breitbart article to make a point about how gamers are stereotyped and... look, is everyone here aware of who Andrew Breitbart was?

Ok, primer time: Breitbart was a notorious right-wing smear campaigner with a record of backing racist, sexist and homophobic bullshit with an almost religious fervour. He was most famous for getting a lady named Shirley Sherrod who worked for the USDA to step down after taking some things that she said out of context to claim that she was racist against white people. He also did this whole hidden camera scam that brought down a voting rights group called ACORN in which he posed as a pimp. He was a muckraker of the nastiest sort, and extremely intellectually dishonest despite being incredibly intelligent in his own right.

The site that is now posthumously named after him grew out of the blogging site that he founded to showcase people whose views he approved of. These are not people that you want to cosy up with.

Almost there...

See, HAD that been all it was, the whole controversy would have blown over in the midst of a weekend. But instead a lot of sites started censoring ANY discussion of it which just lit a match on the whole thing and now it's grown beyond the Quinnsparky that started it. There's a guy I don't always agree with (hence not linking), but he was spot on when he summed up the issue:

"What Mark Hill and the other SJW’s miss in their victimization narrative is that they are the bullies, they are the harassers. Gamers and other assorted nerds escaped the trauma of public schooling, bullying, and social ostracism by retreating to nerdy hobbies and now just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobbies in peace.

But instead of leaving them in peace, the SJW’s are invading their hobbies and attacking them. It the SJW’s who have invaded gaming, not gamers who have invaded SJW space.

They should also realize it’s not the gamers who are punching down, it’s the SJW’s. The SJW’s have most of the gaming press writing insulting articles about ‘gamers’, they have Reddit and gaming sites banning #gamergaters posts and comments, and they even have the mainstream press jumping on gamers. Meanwhile, the #gamersgate have no platform beyond their personal blogs and the occasional forum and are threatened with firings and never being able to work in gaming again if they dare express their opinions. Even Cracked itself has written two anti-gamer pieces on #gamersgate and not a single piece from the other side (not to mention all the SJW in games stuff they’ve written previously).

The SJW’s should realize they are the ones with the power who are punching down. They’re the ones doing the harassing. They are the bullies.

The gamers are a mostly powerless group using what little they have to keep their hobby safe for them."

You want the rallying cry? It is only this: "Leave us alone!"

Look just... let's just stop with concern trolling. If we're all going to have to start jettisoning everybody that's less holy than the pope, we're going to end up with all of us setting our computers on fire and moving out to the middle of nowhere in efforts to be pure.

edited 19th Sep '14 5:18:53 AM by NateWinchester

Except that the 4channers who fanned this entire epidemic specifically did everything they could to stop that from happening, according to their own chat logs. They intentionally took the discussion to ANY social media vehicle they could, at time even posing as strawman versions of the opposite side to make sure that the topic didn't die.

That argument makes no sense in the context that SJ Ws have no more power over what content is being published than anyone else. The most they can do is the same thing the pro-GG crowd is doing, write letters, make comments, send emails, etc.

And Tobias and I have already covered the ridiculousness of the "insulting" allegations. Again, many of the writers making these posts are themselves gamers and state that they themselves have been guilty of these problems in the past. If they're not talking about you, they're not talking about you. Again, this is no different from a black activist saying that black people have too many people in jail and not raising kids. If you're not in jail and are raising a child, then you're not one of the people they're talking about.

edited 19th Sep '14 5:42:07 AM by KingZeal

There needs to be some sort of standard, though.

Like I've said before, I haven't gone over the chat logs yet so not commenting much on them, though I notice the log has a 8/18 date when a lot of the breakout seems to have happened in the day or two proceeding and it's in a full public chat room so it kind of sucks as a conspiracy. I'm trying to find a full timeline now.

Except a lot of SJ Ws are in the media or those in the media are SJW-sensitive. Sort of like claiming "You're a heretic" has more sway over a Catholic or Muslim than an atheist, claiming "insensitive" or "misogynist" has more sway over SJW culture and the media is rife with it.

And if a great number (if not all) of the black activists said all on the same day, "the end of Blackness", you don't think even the "if it don't fit" people wouldn't take notice? Or if some of the "good Blacks" started saying to the activists: "Yeah but there seems to be an issue with some racist judges..." and the activists replied: "Get back on the chain gain and quit having kids till you can raise them." that maybe - JUST MAYBE - even those "not applicable" would start bristling?

If there's any standard beyond "what is true" then every debate quickly races to disqualify everything on the other side using said standard.

Example: Say you and I decide to debate which flavor of ice cream is best. In the interest of fair judging, we agree that anybody who enjoys pies should not be allowed to contribute (because pie eaters are just beyond the pale). Eventually when one of us starts having a hard time proving the superiority of their flavor, they'll be tempted to bring the other side down by claiming some source is a pie eater. Then one of two things will happen: A) Both sides began attacking each other as eating lots of pies or B) a discussion breaks out over how much pie one must eat to be disqualified (can you taste a pie... is a whole slice bad... etc) but that only lasts a bit before looping back to A.

That second part is irrelevant. It not being a competent conspiracy doesn't refute it being a conspiracy.

So then, it's not "SJ Ws that are influencing the media" so much as individual people doing what they feel like doing. You know, like any form of media ever.

Every single thing you just said has already happened. They can bristle as much as they like. They wouldn't be any less wrong than what's being suggested now. People not liking being called out on their shit doesn't disqualify others for calling them out on their shit.

Except for the "good blacks" thing; I don't recall any SJ-allied gamer journalists referring to themselves as "good ones".

That's kind of funny, because you yourself have been attacking SJ Ws in the last few posts. Your argument is that it's bad to use any factors except objective proof, but you yourself have made accusatory and negative language. As have many people, whether it be calling SJ Ws stupid, ignorant, liars, etc. If facts are the only judge, then those words are meaningless.

You ever get the feeling that there comes a point in most discussions, or rather arguments, in that it all becomes pointless? That no one will or even is trying to convince anyone. No one will be convinced, because that would be losing. They're just volleying words at each other, a waste of breath. Or ink, or electrons, as the case may be.

Like I said before, as a non-gamer, I'm incapable of giving a damn about any of this, except maybe expressing a bit of annoyance of this taking over this thread.

Winning a debate, convincing the other party, or making that party look bad should not be the goal in an argument. The goal in an argument is to arrive at the truth by means of exchanging information and criticism.

You are right, however, in that if none of the evidence provided can be agreed upon by all sides as "proof", then the argument has become pointless without a neutral third party as a final mediator.

edited 19th Sep '14 7:45:33 AM by KingZeal

Like I said before, as a non-gamer, I'm incapable of giving a damn about any of this, except maybe expressing a bit of annoyance of this taking over this thread.

Same here.

I thought you were a gamer, or into game-design?