Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

here's my position on this whole sordid affair.

When you make a game critique based on a preconceived world view, you are not being unbiased. That makes your review nothing more than a biased editorial piece, and destroys all objectivity in the review.

This is true no matter what is being critiqued. it could be food-- "Your roast salmon entree is shit, because I hate salmon." Etc.

When a reviewer does this, they expose themselves as being a REALLY BAD REVIEWER. End of story.


If more people thought this way about such "reviews", and especially about "reviewers", then there would simply be no room for reviews or critiques to become vehicles for social agendas.

It always floors me how SJW types will scream about freedom of expression when THEY get censored, but are quite happy to censor everyone else.  Trying to hijack legitimate reviews of media offerings with their agenda is censorship. They dont consider it as such, but that is exactly what it is.

Any "reviewer" that uses this tactic ("I dont like that kind of thing, so instant bad review!") should immediately be placed in the "Full on moron" pile.

I agree with most of what you said, but that's not really relevant and the kind of thing that brings thread closings about. Anita Sarkeesian positions herself as a media critic, but she's not the kind of critic who gives reviews and scores and such, so complaining about the problems with game reviews is a separate issue from criticizing her for whatever reason (and there are plenty).

But it is!  Her opinion piece on Fallout 4 can be rehashed with the food analogy as:

"The salmon entree would be so much better if it didnt feature salmon, and instead showcased the complexity of supporting sauce with some other meat."

Where the REASON for this criticism, is that the reviewer does not like salmon, and instead has a fetish for that specific kind of sauce.

As an objective review, it is meaningless. Taste in media is just as varied as taste in food. This reviewer has a preference for making games be "edutainment" vehicles for her political agenda, even though this is de-facto censorship of other messages-- specifically censorship of the messages she finds dis-favorable. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that she would come unglued at a reviewer doing the exact same thing, from the other side of the preference spectrum.

[Neonivek]

But it is!  Her opinion piece on Fallout 4 can be rehashed with the food analogy as:

"The salmon entree would be so much better if it didnt feature salmon, and instead showcased the complexity of supporting sauce with some other meat."

Where the REASON for this criticism, is that the reviewer does not like salmon, and instead has a fetish for that specific kind of sauce.

As an objective review, it is meaningless. Taste in media is just as varied as taste in food. This reviewer has a preference for making games be "edutainment" vehicles for her political agenda, even though this is de-facto censorship of other messages-- specifically censorship of the messages she finds dis-favorable. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that she would come unglued at a reviewer doing the exact same thing, from the other side of the preference spectrum.

Quote added so people don't suffer previous page amnesia.

Basically she mentioned the feature ENTIRELY for her Non-violence Platform.

She basically brought up a Salmon dish ENTIRELY just to talk about how much Salmon sucks.

"The Chocolate chips are delicious, too bad cookies taste bad... now if it was a Cake it would be delicious"
Me: "Why the heck are you a food critic?"

[Orange Wizard]

The food analogy is twisted beyond all comprehension.

Sarkeesian says stupid things? In other news, water is wet.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but never "Why is she a critic?" level of stupid.

Sure she isn't QUITE Glenn Beck levels... but she is getting there.

[Tiruin]

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone else whose handwriting was worse in print than it was in cursive. At most someone's printing would only be slightly better instead of much better.

Hello Bohandas, I am Tiruin. It is very nice to meet you!

I meant anyone other than you (ie, the observation didn't include me)

I was going to link something LONG ago but I remembered only now >_>
Stuff like this poke me. We constantly use cursive here in the Philippines--I guess I didn't realize its different everywhere else o_o (See video within link)

[Descan]

* Descan opens link, sees clickbait title, sighs.

* Descan continues to sigh at the "Oh man, the past was so much better, we suck now!" style of the 'article.'

[Eric Blank]

I was actually taught cursive in elementary school and use it in my signatures, but it isnt very common in everyday use, no.

Definitely need more calligraphic arts in the U.S. though.

[MaximumZero]

It's me. My handwriting is awful in the obscene hell-mash of calligraphy, print, and cursive that is my daily handwriting as opposed to my very careful cursive.

[Tiruin]

* Descan opens link, sees clickbait title, sighs.

* Descan continues to sigh at the "Oh man, the past was so much better, we suck now!" style of the 'article.'

Yeah >_> the balance to the good content.
But I didn't use that to take the title literally. Somehow, its just formatted that way despite the content...in between the lines.

[Descan]

I did read it, was kind of cool.

Just that shit annoys the butts out of me.

* Descan's butts' run away.

[AlleeCat]

Welcome to thought police, 2015 edition. You're not allowed to have fun in any way that's not accepted by SJW community. Enjoy your stay.

You know what I absolutely LOVE? When people use a single person as an example of an entire community, just because they claim to be part of that community.

The KKK kill black people. They're a Christian organization. Does that mean that Christians kill black people? A guy who shot up a school played violent video games. Does that mean that everyone who plays violent video games is a mass murderer?

[wierd]

Semantic quibble:

"The KKK kills black people, and claims to be a christian organization. Does this mean that christians kill black people"? results in the logical answer "Yes" -- There ARE christians who kill black people, namely, the KKK.

The rhetorical question you were looking for is "Does that mean *all* christians kill black people?", which lacks sufficient data to answer. ;P

This of course, overlooks the value of stereotypes. Stereotypes are NOT intended to judge individuals; they are intended to provide coarse assessments of large groups of individuals.  For instance, the stereotype "Christians are superstitious." It does not mean that ALL christians are superstitious (unless you use some very twisted axioms about what constitutes a superstition such that belief in a deity is a superstition), it means that more often than not, when you encounter a christian, they will hold at least one superstitious belief.

Stereotypes are useful constructs when applied to aggregates. This is basically how big data works in fact-- Big data finds downright silly stereotypes based on metrics collected, which are then used to gain marketing advantages. The fact that big data works proves that stereotypes are useful.

The argument was against the stereotypical SJW; Not individual SJWs.


In essence, a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) feels that there is something wrong with how society commutes justice, and seeks to remedy this. This is in direct contravention of people who like the status quo. The extension of this is that if the SJWs dont like a specific form of recreation, they will seek to prevent you engaging in that form of recreation, since they seek to prevent that form of recreation being undertaken. (Let's use a purposefully bombastic form, such as spectator cock fighting.) The statement Sergarr made: "You're not allowed to have fun in any way that's not accepted by SJW community." is true-- You can have fun any other way besides watching two chickens kill each other, as far as that group of SJWs is concerned. When extended to the stereotypical SJW, which represents the sum total of all "Injustices" the combined assemblage perceives, vast stretches of the "Possible entertainment activity space" are excluded. Because those activities are not accepted by the SJW community.

[Orange Wizard]

The rhetorical question you were looking for is "Does that mean *all* christians kill black people?", which lacks sufficient data to answer. ;P

As a Christian, I can confirm that not all Christians kill black people. There's one guy at my church who hasn't gotten around to it yet.

[KingofstarrySkies]

he is not yet worthy

[Neonivek]

Besides the people Christens really murder are topaz people.

Ever wondered why you don't see any? Yep... we got to them first.