So the comedian that really pissed off SJWs recently.. yeah, I finally see it being shared on Twitter.

Linky

Personally, I found this damn funny. But that's also because.. you know.. comedian. They can get ya to laugh and hang loose. Of course some folks aren't happy about that....

There surely is a lot of humor or, to be more precise, a deep sense of irony involved in pointing at Milo Yiannopoulos to show the shred of human decency in a sea of targeted harassment and shaming outrage. And in literally screaming at the audience for social justice.

"former state that has never existed" are you double-thinking here? though I am more of a fan of Morrowind over later TES games because it has more to it.

I'm talking about those that have a neo-puritanical, world view afraid of listening to ANYONE outside their group yet think everyone should "listen & believe" them, the ones that think everyone else needs to change to suit only them.

the "Hecklers" at UMass are a prime example

And I am aware that "SJW" doesn't mean that they are a cohesive or even a stable group, not when they can segregate or attack each other over the most minor details. one phrase I often hear is "Smash the patriarchy" & that is very much a "warrior" mindset as in the Hulk (& I don't mean one of his more intellectual incarnations)

Heh yeah that Clip was funny as hell, I tried to watch the whole show but I can't make out the remark that sparked it, just screaming.

Someone has kindly linked to the full thing so I'm gonna try to watch it. ( Thanks, Rusty! )

I have some free time and I'm eating a late lunch. I'll see what I can hear. :)

That's fairly evident. You're putting up strawmen at an alarming pace, asking me to dismantle them to make my point. That's just irritating, really.


The journalist's opinion is as valid as his. Well, as Wardell's opinion is that journalists should be put out of a job when their definition of 'neutral' doesn't match his, I'd say the journalist's opinion is more valid than his.

No problem Arinielle

Alright, got to the part where he starts with going off on the folks there.

I think he ended up working on some of that routine as hecklers kept doing what they do. Just seemed more and more a good idea to just finally pop off on 'em.

This is of course only my opinion and we know comedians and other entertainers know how to work a crowd and gain knowledge being in close proximity to others.

It sounds like he's trying to speak from his mind on this. I can't say "from the heart" but like many over the years, this shit builds up and it has to explode somewhere.

OK whatever floats your boat. Still don't know what you mean by ''diversity''. Apparently calling everything a strawman is very popular now. I see it as taking more steps away from using exact terms for nuanced discussion and more in the favor of trying to scare off arguers with creative use of labeling.

Yes, you do. Also making constant assumptions like thinking for us that Depression Quest is bad because it has bad graphics when many of us love tons of crappy graphics shit in this website, and NO a good message doesn't make a game or a movie GOOD, actually bad messages in a good movie or game are far more powerful that forced messages in channels that simply don´t fit, same as thinking that Dragon Spear criticisms came from hate-speech and bigotry, when the same people that criticized accepts transsexuals in other games without any problem. You make TONS of assumptions in order to blame a community because you are just full of prejudices.

Reality Check, Forgotten Realms have tons of characters changing sex since the beginning of times, there is no need to forced inclusivism also not even having in consideration what is possible to do in the Lore. Yes, you burn people in the internet for less than wear a pin-up shirt, so what do you expect Greenwood to say? He is wise enough to say the truth, the truth that Forgotten Realms was always inclusive, but what he dont say, because probably he dont want to have problems with the MORAL POLICE is that the writing in Dragon Spear is silly and out of the context and lore of the universe. There is no need for transsexuals in Forgotten Realms, because is an universe where Gender is nothing more than an easy choice, and a magic spell, and you are the bigoted one if you are unable to understand this. Ah! and before you walk hypocritally over it, I remember you again the heavy argument that almost nobody ever protested about transsexuals in Witcher 3 and Inquisition because just fits perfectly the lore.

No, MaREY SUE, is what STARWARS bring to fill their pockets, is a bad developed character to please an easy audience, feminism was invented already with GREAT characters that struggle, like Ellen Ripley, but well, seems generations are turning more and more stupid in the name of the market. Common pop-culture thinks like me, not like you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs3sVrm_W4o minute 4 20 meanwhile the movie just unbalanced and makes Leia be not much more than a mother and a house keeper, but hey, is a "feminist" movie, LOL

This video is beautiful. Love some of their previous work, but this one definitely makes quite a few points.

Love and humanization correlate positively. I would expect you'd get my point with that - that the kind of respect implicit in humanization is not inherently inclusive. You are kind of clarifying that your humanization is equivalent to my truce / cease-fire (ergo: tolerance) concept, but you are ignoring the underlying point about how inclusivity can be a false idol of sorts. Loving sometimes means leaving or excluding. We grow as individuals and attachment can cripple us. It's biology... call it determinism if you wish to pigeonhole.

To restate part of my conclusion. A fundamental issue I see with SJ philosophies is how counterproductive they are - in the idealism of attempting to shortcut to inclusivity, they actually hinder the chance of pragmatic baby steps improvement in the underlying disrespect.

Skipping over your exemplary outburst. Filing it under another failed attempt at getting you to understand and humanize your own enemy. Clearly the language barrier is still too strong. But the culture war exists, enemy rhetorics can be not only justified, but actually correct (the pejorative / descriptive false dichotomy) - some (most?) of your "enemies" are in it because of a sense of duty and diverse moral values to yours. Not because of malice or being evil shitl@rds dudebr@s.

Practice what you preach basically?


Now shifiting to more interesting meta level waters: what you call the narrative media context. It is actually broader - since narrative media is not pure creation, it's also reflecting culture. So, you are correct the pushback increased - we agree so far - but I believe you're being too reductive. Milo's recent article on the alt-right is closer to the mark I believe. Now, I would not say classifying me in any of the alt-right groups would be a particularly interesting exercise - certainly anti-intellectual is probably the farthest from the truth in my case - but then again, I am not sure I fit in the alt right at all. I am too classically liberal (I believe the nrx have some choice terms) but I certainly agree with some of the societal diagnosis coming from those folks.

If you find it interesting please feel free to sketch the positions of "my side" in the culture wars, I'll reply honestly as usual. I would assume it would not be difficult to get it right (pun intended), but of course you are likely to find significance rather in what you dislike in me (even if that might be pure projection) versus what I say and do. It's again biology... psychology of group dynamics in this case.

It would be more interesting and fruitful however (or so I think) if you managed to lift your eyes a bit higher from the narrative media, to the overall media, and actually saw some of the grievances about "ethics in mumble journalism" have always been merited. Ridiculing the slogan did not change the underlying truth. Mission journalism is antethical with communicating the truth. That journalism was redefined away from objectivity is obvious, but the point under discussion is precisely IF it should or not have done so. Ergo is mission journalism a corruption of journalism, or a sublimation of journalism. Guess what I think... no points for guessing right, but will subtract some if you guess wrong. ;)


Which segues finely into gaming and GG. Part of the mob dynamics that are so obvious all around is precisely and ironically because the SJ subversion invaded a safe space of sorts. The political is very personal in this case. As for origins of online harassment, that your side completely ignores all of the vitriol spewed during the Bush admin is very revealing. Vitriolic political discourse has been the norm for decades, and it flared up hugely into the Iraq War. Do I really need to again ask you to read the article on smug liberalism? Or you still do not see that all of this was born much much earlier than GG and even the internet? In fact the personal is political mistake (because it swung much too far) came to fruition in the seventies! Has it blossomed into larger abuses of privacy as the net became more popular? Well duh... everything has become less private because of the net... Seeing GG as causing that reverses the actual causality so obviously that it is rather symptomatic of the dehumanization and enemy concepts you decry. When compared to the overall society and its trends, it's a miracle gaming remained mostly apolitical for as long.

I happen to think (plausible deniability is soooo easy) you're not wrong in your facts (even about harassment existing in / because / from GG) but you sure are biased in your contextual frame. The millenial culture of harassing others to change, of calling out for justice, etc etc... was born on your side and spread out from it. If you ask me, the fact it is so strong nowadays is mainly due to the meta contexts of economic and geopolitic insecurity which have developed, but that would be a huge digression... The point being that you folks (PS: do I really need to be explicit that I mean the left broadly when I am generalizing? or do you sincerely want to tell me I am wrong about your political leanings?)... you folks had no problem with punching up, where said punches were obvious harassment under a thin mask of political protest justification. And now you are surprised that other missionary zealots have different perspectives on up and down based on their own mission priorities, AND that they are quite adept at following the example that was provided and even lauded as ethical (mission journalism remember). Looking at such matters of up and down subjectively is the source problem: Identity politics are problematic. You are being outcompeted basically. It's biology again... population ecology of sorts.


Let's wrap it up. You conclude with nice rhetoric about sociological analogy, inclusivity, the power of fiction to broaden minds, justice of all kinds, ethics and free speech. Brilliant. And you correctly point out there are methods, rather than goals, which are problematic and deplorable in this whole brouhaha. Agreed again. But you are never interested in discussing how those methods became widespread, and have ridiculed the early efforts to focus on those topics. I don't call that your rhetoric mind you, it's just another example of how the rejection of objectivity and idolization of the personal and subjective undermines responsibility. You are never interested in going deep enough to actually assign responsibility. You are happy with the surface level responsibility derived from your political associations.

Note, I used how, not why. Which is the crux of the matter. The importance of how things happen implies repeatability, implies universal truth, implies objectivity. The focus on why implies personal truths, motivations and intentions. Objectivity does not preclude subjectivity, it includes it. Objective reality includes ALL the subjective ones - and their existence does not disprove the former. Objectivity is what resolves subjective conflicts basically. Objectivity / facts should determine responsibility at a broader level than subjectivity / intent. That's the discussion that is being made taboo because of identity politics.

Doesn't mention Amy Hennig.

Sorry, that looked like a good article & I didn't know of her.