wvpr: They are appealing to his fanbase as part of their overall marketing plan. They aren't catering to his fanbase at the expense of everyone else.
OK, I guess we're safe then.
wvpr: Suppose, for instance, that the more radicalized TB fans start a "consumer revolt" demanding that GOG drop some hated publishers. If there's a lot of overlap between GOG customers and TB fans, GOG would have to give their protest a lot of weight.
Suppose Licurg insisted GOG decapitated everyone who
liked Sacrifice. Suppose he had a big enough group of supporters here for that to matter. In such circumstances GOG would need to weigh in on the situation, right?
Yes, but the scenario is ludicrous. Getting rid of certain publishers from the store? For what reason and what purpose? Of course, of course: this is only a HYPOTHETICAL scenario...
wvpr: That's an extreme example. It's more realistic to assume a strong TB contingent will influence sales and forum culture more subtly, less overtly. Skewing the population more towards that fanbase links the needs of the site with that fanbase.
OK, here's the deal: you seem to be suggesting that if *something* happens, *something* bad will follow. You're trying to avoid explicitly saying "and that's terrible", but you can either mean it or not. If you don't think anything bad will happen as a result, then your entire line of reasoning goes out the window, because there would be absolutely no harm done. If you do suspect harm may come, there are some very basic questions that need answering.
1* How big of a percentage of GOG customers would need to constitute TB fans for this to be a problem?
2* How militant would all these people have to be for it to be a problem?
3* What sort of actions would they have to undertake or support for there to be a problem?
4* How many of them would need to have the same views and how much would they have to agree to successfully work together?
5* How would you describe TB's fans? He's got over 2 million subscribers on YouTube, though that's not necessarily how many people watch him or like him.
What do all these people have in common? Note - they very well might be trends among this population. On average his fans are people in their 30s and late 20s, and so on... Still - I would love to hear you justify the idea that TB's fans are, say, evil people.
If they do not share negative traits that might have an impact on GOG... your argument falls apart. wvpr: They don't need TB, his fans, his opponents, or anyone else setting the tone of GOG's website.
Let me blow your mind with a counter-perspective: in my eyes TB is mostly just a sane every-man.
He cares about PC gaming, takes issue with things like DRM, framerate locks, insufficiently populated option menus... He's just good at what he does. He's honest and tries to be as impartial as humanly possible.
I would hardly consider him a divisive figure.
Again - enlighten me - what "tone"? How is he setting it? His videos about games are videos about games.
wvpr: But it may back them into a corner down the line. I don't know because I can't foretell the future.
Well, maybe you should stop acting like you can.
You may get hit by a truck tomorrow and bleed out on the pavement. Will that happen? I don't know... I can't foretell the future either...
wvpr: TB's public image is already not stellar.
I would beg to differ.
Would you like to back your claims up with some evidence? Any details of his misconduct and why people SHOULD NOT trust him or like him?
I understand that there is a group of people who hate his guts, but that's probably true of any public figure. Can you show me that I should care what that group thinks and that they are the hyper-consumers this store needs so desperately that cutting ties with TB would be the smart thing to do?
wvpr: Words like "hugbox" are also loaded buzzwords implying a lot more than anything I said.
Quite right. I've used it deliberately and successfully... you didn't. Here's why:
In communication a message is sent and received. The person sending the message should keep in mind who he is sending the message to; context matters. The message should be worded accordingly. It should be formed in a way likely to be understood, likely to convey the original intention of the author. While wording may seem to be superficial decoration on top of a semantic cake, this is not necessarily the case. First of all - some rhetoric may simply put certain people off. Those who won't stop listening with act with a heightened sense of criticism, and in some cases they may even miss your point entirely while ripping your message to shreds based on the sentiment they believe you to hold. You may consider it the fault of hostile misinterpreters, but what's the point in antagonizing them when it can, at all, be avoided? If you can express the same idea in a multitude of ways, you should probably pick one that will make the most people from the target group understand your idea and see your point of view... Unless you are, of course, trolling, in which case - go nuts.
wvpr: Reactionary is a longstanding term that nicely encapsulates the kind of person I was talking about.
It constitutes something I like to refer to as a "
general purpose insult". In that sense it's among the ranks of words like "fascist" and "edgy". These words may have had certain meanings, but meaning is use, and their frivolous application has led to a situation in which they are
no longer used to describe but merely to antagonize.
As you may be aware, words carry two loads - an intellectual one and an emotional one. They explain certain things, elucidate on one hand, but they also express sentiments and feelings on the other. The specifics of both depend on the crowd you are in. Let me give you an example to drive this point home even further:
People on /pol/ are fond of the term "degeneracy". To them it seems like a perfectly fine word that expresses their thoughts succinctly. They use this term among themselves, understand it, and everything is peachy. What they DON'T do is go out into the wide world and punctuate arguments by using this term. Most people avoid using "degeneracy" in this manner, because doing so would out them (rightfully or not) as /pol/ members or sympathizers, and in most social circles that's not considered prestigious (to say the least). In simpler terms, one might say it's not "appropriate".
Even if your word is fairly well defined in some contexts, this may not necessarily hold in others. For instance - Ruth Benedict uses the term "deviant" to denote a person straying from the beaten path ("de via") of social norms. If you look the term up, that's even the dictionary definition you will end up with. However, in most social circles there is a strong stigma attached to this word, and few people will consider your verbal act purely descriptive if you call someone a deviant without explaining the technicality of the term in advance.
tl;dr: use words in appropriate contexts. By using the term "reactionary" you're not doing yourself any favors HERE; you're painting a huge target on your back. This is not a term people here use or like. If you want to express the same ideas that certain people on other websites would instantly get from your usage of the term "reactionary", you're going to have to work around the word, perhaps even providing detailed examples and exhaustive descriptions. If you cannot do that and still have the same impact, then you are actually using a buzzword... but that's not the worst part. If that's the case,
you're using a buzzword in a place where it doesn't work (and are surprised at the results?).
wvpr: You clearly understood what I meant by it, and there's no disputing there are some very vocal gamers that fall into that category. I was careful to refer to them separately from TB and his total followers.
OK, let's not beat around the bush anymore... Let's get something tangible and evident.
Do you consider me a "reactionary", as you put it? Are all "reactionaries" bad? / Is it bad to be a "reactionary"?
Is everyone who uses the (similarly nebulous) term "SJW" a reactionary?
This is pretty much the clincher, because if you say I am a reactionary, you either have to admit that being a reactionary doesn't make me evil or convince others that there is something fundamentally wrong with me.
On the other hand - if you say that I am not, you will have to show that there is something fundamentally different in these "reactionaries", something that separates them from me. If you point out only features that I share with them, you will be back to the first dilemma. If you point out something truly terrible that I will NOT wish to associate with, like kicking puppies and blowing up vans, you'll have to provide me with evidence of this being a dominating trend among this reactionary group, and you will fail to do so.
My bet is on "I don't know". Ignorance is your best refuge here.
YaTEdiGo: Sarkeesian is making good money being a Con Actress, a pretty good one by the way, feed by the angry mob she constantly try to inflame (with a pretty good rate of success), is amazing how "SJW" also take the bait... because PIXELS can transform you into a white hetero-patriarch... yeaaaaahhh sure...
Oh, I can't help myself ^^... so I'll help others.
(trigger warning: satire)
25 Invisible benefits of being Anita Sarkeesian Tropes vs Women in Breakfast Cereal Becoming Sarkeesian In a nutshell
