Print

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

[Heron TSG]

Gamers, harassment, female Bioware writer, entitlement, etc.

Secondly, the writer of that article keeps using "nerd" as an insult, and that makes me angry.

There are plenty of good points in the article but pinning it all on mysogyny instead of entitled and demanding fans is a bit off base.

The article was alright, but there were a few things that really confused the hell out of me. In an article about harassment...

[Previous paragraph: Harassment victim wants games to cater to people who like the stories more.]

But more importantly, she’s talking about making games more inclusive and suggesting that people play games for different reasons and in different ways. This is at the heart of why the misogynerds are so angry: the industry is changing, it’s been changing for a long time, and it’s no longer the sole domain of misogynist nerds like them.

...the author starts using stereotypes and name-calling. Now, I've played video games for nigh-upon 15 years now. I like a challenge in games, but I accept that other people prefer other facets of the games. Somehow, this author has said that every single person who doesn't agree with that is not only a nerd, but a woman-hater! (I assume she's implying they're male, as well, though I suppose there could be female misogynists.)

So … to the immature dipshits: You are going to have to share your toys

• now. You are going to have to share your video games and your comic books. You are going to have to accept that we like these things, and that they will become more inclusive and not just cater to insecure, homophobic, insular fuck-knuckles on the basis of that liking.
  

Well gee, now they're insecure for some reason. Because a couple of them were homophobic when talking about Shepard, they're all homophobic! Because they're gamers, they're insular fuck-knuckles! It's not lame gamers can be extroverted or anything.

*People who aren't 'insecure homophobic insular fuck-knuckles' play games too, and have for a long while.

Honestly, the point of the article was right on. It really could have been made without being so inflammatory, though.

[Max White]

The issue:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptism_for_the_dead&mobileaction=view_normal_site#Jewish_Holocaust_victims

The hilarious revenge I just had to share:
http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

While I understand the concern here, and why it is generally insensitive, there is another point of view here from the Mormon faith. A post mortem Mormon baptism isn't saying "This person is now a Mormon for now and forever!", rather it is their way of giving those that have already passed away a chance to convert to the faith, if they wish, as they believe in the afterlife, there for it makes sense to them that those that have already died still should be given the right to convert if they choose to. If the dead person in question does not choose to enter the Mormon faith then it doesn't count and they remain what ever they were before.

That is, at least, their point of view. It all seems a little absurd to me to be honest, but I don't believe in any sort of after life.

EDIT:

them that those that

Oh wow, is that really a thing I just typed? And it made sense? Weird...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It is horribly disrespectful and forced upon people who cannot consent (in this case, the dead). I don't care how the Mormons see it, they need to mind their own business.

[Max White]

But the point is that in their opinion, the dead can consent, so they would hardly take that as any reasonable argument.

Just sort of, disclaimer here, I'm playing devils advocate. Anyway, you remember that article posted before on why humans will never understand each other? This is covered by the second reason...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But the point is that in their opinion, the dead can consent, so they would hardly take that as any reasonable argument.

And their opinion on the ability of dead people to consent is wrong. As in, factually, objectively incorrect.

[Max White]

But then you are saying there is no afterlife, thus you are arguing that their entire faith is wrong. Do you honestly believe you can convince them of this fact? Can you factually prove there is no afterlife?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It doesn't matter. There is absolutely nothing physical proving the existence of an afterlife (which I could get them to agree to, by turning the faith argument around), and thus in a factual matter such as baptizing dead people who were never Mormons it is irreverent.

Can you factually prove there is no afterlife?

I don't have to. You can't prove an unestablished negative, and so the burden of proof is automatically on those claiming an afterlife's existence.


I don't really want to discuss this, as this particular issue is very enraging to me. The presumptions by certain religious groups that they can just....claim you as belonging to them brings up a kind of anger that I rarely find in myself. That the Mormons choose to do it after you are rendered unable to personally rebuke their efforts makes it magnitudes worse. Combined with other issues I take with the LDS church that I don't wish to go into now, this is a very emotionally charged subject for me.

[kaijyuu]

@g-flex
Way to jump to conclusions, bucko!


I'm not arguing everyone has the same aptitude at everything. MY issue is the arbitrarily basing all these laws on age instead of said aptitude. Do any of the things you listed have anything to do with the number of revolutions someone has done around the sun? No, they have everything do with mental, social, and physical development instead. Not only that, everyone grows and develops at different rates. There are 12 year olds more mentally mature than you or I, out there. What's another word for making assumptions about people based on arbitrary shit? Oh yeah, prejudice.

And when I mentioned practicality, I meant it for things like voting rights and consent. How exactly would you test capacity for those? Gonna give out a politics test before people can vote? As such, I'll concede age limits on those sort of things only because actually being fair and moral is almost impossible to accomplish.


My beef, ultimately, is the idea that people can somehow be inherently inferior. You can be inferior at a task. You can be inferior at knowledge of a subject. You can't be inferior as a human being. If we give rights to human beings, you need damn good, provable, and practical reasons to take them away from any particular individual, not the group they belong to. Blanket, arbitrary removal of rights is never a moral action.


So in other words, if your argument is "most kids can't do x action, thus shouldn't have y right" my reply would be "base the law around being able to do x action to have y right, not age."

[Max White]

Sorry MetalSlimeHunt, if you find this personally upsetting I will drop the subject, as I wouldn't want to cause distress.
Like I said, I don't share their views, I was simply debating from that point of view for the sake of seeking to expose flaws in my own beliefs with the hope of strengthening them, or at least getting them into a more logical format.

[GlyphGryph]

Still, it's the point that your body is no longer your property posthumously

lolwut.

No, nothing is your property after you die. On account of you being dead. The dead can't hold property, that's pretty well enshrined in law, and is why we have wonderful inheritance battles from families over who owns what - since it clearly isn't owned by the dead guy anymore and has to go somewhere.

[G-Flex]

You mean I had that pyramidal tomb commissioned for nothing?

[Montague]

Still, it's the point that your body is no longer your property posthumously

lolwut.

No, nothing is your property after you die. On account of you being dead. The dead can't hold property, that's pretty well enshrined in law, and is why we have wonderful inheritance battles from families over who owns what - since it clearly isn't owned by the dead guy anymore and has to go somewhere.

Property nominally belongs to the dead guy until ownership is transferred. Point in case, any debt a guy accumulates survives his death and his property can thus be used to settle it, cause it's still his stuff and still his debt. Technically it's the 'estate' which is just a legal representation of the dead guy and his will determines how the ownership of his stuff is handled.

So a dead guy's body still belongs to him and it goes where he planned it would go after his death. To the university to be dissected by med students, or a grave or whatever. His kid's can't just ignore the will and dump his carcass in the river or whatever, because it's not their property either.

[EveryZig]

Property nominally belongs to the dead guy until ownership is transferred. Point in case, any debt a guy accumulates survives his death and his property can thus be used to settle it, cause it's still his stuff and still his debt. Technically it's the 'estate' which is just a legal representation of the dead guy and his will determines how the ownership of his stuff is handled.

So a dead guy's body still belongs to him and it goes where he planned it would go after his death. To the university to be dissected by med students, or a grave or whatever. His kid's can't just ignore the will and dump his carcass in the river or whatever, because it's not their property either.

With wills, I think the stuff is (philosophically) not really the dead person's property as much as it is slowly delivered by a series of legal orders/contracts, like a much more elaborate version of sending a letter to somebody and then dying.

[Truean]

http://career-services.monster.com/yahooarticle/is-your-employer-taking-advantage-of-you-hot-jobs#WT.mc_n=yta_fpt_article_employer_taking_advantage

....

[Pnx]

http://career-services.monster.com/yahooarticle/is-your-employer-taking-advantage-of-you-hot-jobs#WT.mc_n=yta_fpt_article_employer_taking_advantage

....

Is it just me or does this seem like a bad idea? If you're poking up trouble, what reason do they have to keep you around and risk messing up this good thing they have going?