Cain on Games - Tim Cain's new YouTube channel

[Wasteland]

I wouldn't say it's a myth exactly but perhaps saying pink was for boys is an exaggeration. It was not considered a feminine color as it is today and boys did wear dress like garments until they were around 6 years old and a pastel like pink was common. This tradition went on in Europe for some time before the U.S was established.

Id have to dig deeper and I don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent but I did attend lectures where several college professors felt wiki could be a good starting point for research. If this is to be believed, both traditions of pink for boys, blue for girls and vice versa co existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers

I do agree with the rest of your post of leftwing media outright fabricating certain things and pushing agendas that way.

Right, the myth is in the exaggeration. Basically they took a claim that "there's no evidence of Americans widely using pink for girls and blue for boys prior to the era of mass media culture," which is entirely reasonable, and turned it into "pink was THE MASCULINE COLOR, LMAO." The former is a statement of uncertainty; the latter is a statement of certainty. This is not a small difference.

It isn't just leftwing media. It's the entire edifice, the pipeline from The Academy on up. There is a SHOCKING lack of rigor in these fields. Whether their claims are true or not in any particular instance is almost beside the point, if they have no basis for them, and no one bothers to verify. That's how we ended up with "women own only 1% of the world's property," for example, a claim which is farcically stupid on its face.

Multiple published papers stated that Paoletti established a clear norm, prior to the 1940s, for boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue. And yet she never did.

I don't disagree with the idea that pink-for-girls is a learned, rather than an innate, preference, but unfortunately no one serious has really ever claimed the opposite. It's yet another smarmy non-sequitur in the battle of "sex roles do not exist but for oppressive social norms." If they can get you nodding along to the uncontroversial idea that pink wasn't always widely associated with girls, maybe you won't notice that their larger argument is full of holes.

 

[0sacred]

He does have a point that certain societal norms have been taught and accepted and then changed.

Ask Tim if he thinks men and women might be genetically wired to like different things, I'm sure you can guess the answer

 

[ds]

The "always political" stuff tends to gloss over that the creators understood they would alienate at least half of the audience if they started preaching and propagandizing, so they would usually stop at the "just giving you stuff to think about" stage. Wokism goes the full mile into "you're literally Hitler if you don't agree with every single batshit thing we say".

Can't risk players coming to the wrong conclusions.

 

[Roguey]

This gives Cain the frowny face on multiple levels.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

This gives Cain the frowny face on multiple levels.

This short entry is full of things that would be unacceptable today, but are true.

We live in a society of fear.

 

[Roguey]

This short entry is full of things that would be unacceptable today, but are true.

We live in a society of fear.

I don't think anyone can argue against how more women got into D&D and role-playing in general precisely because they became more about socialization and theatrics than gaming, just like Gary said.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

This short entry is full of things that would be unacceptable today, but are true.

We live in a society of fear.

I don't think anyone can argue against how more women got into D&D and role-playing in general precisely because they became more about socialization and theatrics than gaming, just like Gary said.

Hence why women are more into stuff like White Wolf rather than wargaming.

 

[NecroLord]

We wanted to address a lot of social things in Arcanum. We wanted to address racism, we wanted to address classism, we wanted to address wealth inequality, and this is all back in the late 90s and so what we did, and we knew that would cause problems even back then, so we bundled it all up into this mythical fantasy world where it was all acted out on things that didn't feel so directed at modern day society.

Wokeanum.

Sometimes you want to make a statement, and by the way for people going "yeah, modern games," games have always made statements. Games in the ' 80s and '90s made statements. They made political statements, they made societal statements, you may not notice, but they did.

Tim in the "games have always been political camp" which is partially true. I mean yeah, Ultima 6 was political. Fallout touches on political subjects. But what political and societal statements did the original Wizardry make?

Faggot can't help himself but get all political and shit.
However, he did it in a clever and relatively "mature" way, instead of the "in your face" and completely vulgar approach of today.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I wouldn't say it's a myth exactly but perhaps saying pink was for boys is an exaggeration. It was not considered a feminine color as it is today and boys did wear dress like garments until they were around 6 years old and a pastel like pink was common. This tradition went on in Europe for some time before the U.S was established.

Id have to dig deeper and I don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent but I did attend lectures where several college professors felt wiki could be a good starting point for research. If this is to be believed, both traditions of pink for boys, blue for girls and vice versa co existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers

I do agree with the rest of your post of leftwing media outright fabricating certain things and pushing agendas that way.

Right, the myth is in the exaggeration. Basically they took a claim that "there's no evidence of Americans widely using pink for girls and blue for boys prior to the era of mass media culture," which is entirely reasonable, and turned it into "pink was THE MASCULINE COLOR, LMAO." The former is a statement of uncertainty; the latter is a statement of certainty. This is not a small difference.

It isn't just leftwing media. It's the entire edifice, the pipeline from The Academy on up. There is a SHOCKING lack of rigor in these fields. Whether their claims are true or not in any particular instance is almost beside the point, if they have no basis for them, and no one bothers to verify. That's how we ended up with "women own only 1% of the world's property," for example, a claim which is farcically stupid on its face.

Multiple published papers stated that Paoletti established a clear norm, prior to the 1940s, for boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue. And yet she never did.

I don't disagree with the idea that pink-for-girls is a learned, rather than an innate, preference, but unfortunately no one serious has really ever claimed the opposite. It's yet another smarmy non-sequitur in the battle of "sex roles do not exist but for oppressive social norms." If they can get you nodding along to the uncontroversial idea that pink wasn't always widely associated with girls, maybe you won't notice that their larger argument is full of holes.

Don't get fooled the whole point is to relativize the sexes. All their arguments are mere exscuses to push that overarching agenda.

 

[Wasteland]

Don't get fooled the whole point is to relativize the sexes. All their arguments are mere exscuses to push that overarching agenda.

Exactly

 

[Sweeper]

I wouldn't say it's a myth exactly but perhaps saying pink was for boys is an exaggeration. It was not considered a feminine color as it is today and boys did wear dress like garments until they were around 6 years old and a pastel like pink was common. This tradition went on in Europe for some time before the U.S was established.

Id have to dig deeper and I don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent but I did attend lectures where several college professors felt wiki could be a good starting point for research. If this is to be believed, both traditions of pink for boys, blue for girls and vice versa co existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers

I do agree with the rest of your post of leftwing media outright fabricating certain things and pushing agendas that way.

Right, the myth is in the exaggeration. Basically they took a claim that "there's no evidence of Americans widely using pink for girls and blue for boys prior to the era of mass media culture," which is entirely reasonable, and turned it into "pink was THE MASCULINE COLOR, LMAO." The former is a statement of uncertainty; the latter is a statement of certainty. This is not a small difference.

It isn't just leftwing media. It's the entire edifice, the pipeline from The Academy on up. There is a SHOCKING lack of rigor in these fields. Whether their claims are true or not in any particular instance is almost beside the point, if they have no basis for them, and no one bothers to verify. That's how we ended up with "women own only 1% of the world's property," for example, a claim which is farcically stupid on its face.

Multiple published papers stated that Paoletti established a clear norm, prior to the 1940s, for boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue. And yet she never did.

I don't disagree with the idea that pink-for-girls is a learned, rather than an innate, preference, but unfortunately no one serious has really ever claimed the opposite. It's yet another smarmy non-sequitur in the battle of "sex roles do not exist but for oppressive social norms." If they can get you nodding along to the uncontroversial idea that pink wasn't always widely associated with girls, maybe you won't notice that their larger argument is full of holes.

If we're already talking about the masculinity of the color pink, I'd like to share one of my favorite genres of youtube videos, I call it "giving hood niggers pink lighters".

 

[La vie sexuelle]

This short entry is full of things that would be unacceptable today, but are true.

We live in a society of fear.

I don't think anyone can argue against how more women got into D&D and role-playing in general precisely because they became more about socialization and theatrics than gaming, just like Gary said.

No. But his quite reasonable biological arguments could be perceived as sexist by the very fact of sex determinism.

 

[Alienman]

Holy shit. Imagine serving these kind of people. Bro.

 

[KainenMorden]

Well, when I saw news articles about American black women being the most educated group and black fathers being the most involved in their children's lives, I realized something was very, very wrong.

 

[NecroLord]

I wouldn't say it's a myth exactly but perhaps saying pink was for boys is an exaggeration. It was not considered a feminine color as it is today and boys did wear dress like garments until they were around 6 years old and a pastel like pink was common. This tradition went on in Europe for some time before the U.S was established.

Id have to dig deeper and I don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent but I did attend lectures where several college professors felt wiki could be a good starting point for research. If this is to be believed, both traditions of pink for boys, blue for girls and vice versa co existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers

I do agree with the rest of your post of leftwing media outright fabricating certain things and pushing agendas that way.

Right, the myth is in the exaggeration. Basically they took a claim that "there's no evidence of Americans widely using pink for girls and blue for boys prior to the era of mass media culture," which is entirely reasonable, and turned it into "pink was THE MASCULINE COLOR, LMAO." The former is a statement of uncertainty; the latter is a statement of certainty. This is not a small difference.

It isn't just leftwing media. It's the entire edifice, the pipeline from The Academy on up. There is a SHOCKING lack of rigor in these fields. Whether their claims are true or not in any particular instance is almost beside the point, if they have no basis for them, and no one bothers to verify. That's how we ended up with "women own only 1% of the world's property," for example, a claim which is farcically stupid on its face.

Multiple published papers stated that Paoletti established a clear norm, prior to the 1940s, for boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue. And yet she never did.

I don't disagree with the idea that pink-for-girls is a learned, rather than an innate, preference, but unfortunately no one serious has really ever claimed the opposite. It's yet another smarmy non-sequitur in the battle of "sex roles do not exist but for oppressive social norms." If they can get you nodding along to the uncontroversial idea that pink wasn't always widely associated with girls, maybe you won't notice that their larger argument is full of holes.

If we're already talking about the masculinity of the color pink, I'd like to share one of my favorite genres of youtube videos, I call it "giving hood niggers pink lighters".

Tell me that guy at least has a gun in case of "emergencies"...
Imagine running a store in some nigger infested hood...

 

[KainenMorden]

I wouldn't say it's a myth exactly but perhaps saying pink was for boys is an exaggeration. It was not considered a feminine color as it is today and boys did wear dress like garments until they were around 6 years old and a pastel like pink was common. This tradition went on in Europe for some time before the U.S was established.

Id have to dig deeper and I don't trust Wikipedia 100 percent but I did attend lectures where several college professors felt wiki could be a good starting point for research. If this is to be believed, both traditions of pink for boys, blue for girls and vice versa co existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers

I do agree with the rest of your post of leftwing media outright fabricating certain things and pushing agendas that way.

Right, the myth is in the exaggeration. Basically they took a claim that "there's no evidence of Americans widely using pink for girls and blue for boys prior to the era of mass media culture," which is entirely reasonable, and turned it into "pink was THE MASCULINE COLOR, LMAO." The former is a statement of uncertainty; the latter is a statement of certainty. This is not a small difference.

It isn't just leftwing media. It's the entire edifice, the pipeline from The Academy on up. There is a SHOCKING lack of rigor in these fields. Whether their claims are true or not in any particular instance is almost beside the point, if they have no basis for them, and no one bothers to verify. That's how we ended up with "women own only 1% of the world's property," for example, a claim which is farcically stupid on its face.

Multiple published papers stated that Paoletti established a clear norm, prior to the 1940s, for boys wearing pink and girls wearing blue. And yet she never did.

I don't disagree with the idea that pink-for-girls is a learned, rather than an innate, preference, but unfortunately no one serious has really ever claimed the opposite. It's yet another smarmy non-sequitur in the battle of "sex roles do not exist but for oppressive social norms." If they can get you nodding along to the uncontroversial idea that pink wasn't always widely associated with girls, maybe you won't notice that their larger argument is full of holes.

If we're already talking about the masculinity of the color pink, I'd like to share one of my favorite genres of youtube videos, I call it "giving hood niggers pink lighters".

Tell me that guy at least has a gun in case of "emergencies"...
Imagine running a store in some nigger infested hood...

Very common in the US for southeast Asians and Arabs to open corner stores, liquor stores and gas stations in those types of areas, many have become quite wealthy doing so. Also, many incidents of them getting shot in robberies or sometimes beat to death trying to confront shoplifters. That's besides the violence that happens in and around these businesses that has nothing to do with the employees.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Very common in the US for southeast Asians and Arabs to open corner stores, liquor stores and gas stations in those types of areas, many have become quite wealthy doing so.

That's because the Federal government subsidizes these ventures for refugees. Back in the 1980s and earlier, most gas stations were mom and pop stores. Then the EPA dumped a bunch of regulations on gas stations and drove a bunch of them out of business, so oil companies started their own gas station chains. There's primarily only two types of owners for gas stations now. Refugees and large corporations.

 

[Butter]

Very common in the US for southeast Asians and Arabs to open corner stores, liquor stores and gas stations in those types of areas, many have become quite wealthy doing so.

That's because the Federal government subsidizes these ventures for refugees. Back in the 1980s and earlier, most gas stations were mom and pop stores. Then the EPA dumped a bunch of regulations on gas stations and drove a bunch of them out of business, so oil companies started their own gas station chains. There's primarily only two types of owners for gas stations now. Refugees and large corporations.

Same reason every trucker is a pajeet now. Used to be White guys were able to make good money without a college degree. The government didn't like that, so they put up the money for Sandeep to get his truck driver training.

 

[Infinitron]

Vibe reset:

I talk about all the pets I have ever had.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Imagine the smell of all these animals shitting and peeing everywhere. High disgust tolerance at least explains the fag part.

 

[NecroLord]

Imagine the smell of all these animals shitting and peeing everywhere. High disgust tolerance at least explains the fag part.

Have you ever had a pet in your life?

 

[BlackAdderBG]

I don't own a doghouse is all I'll say.

 

[0sacred]

Tim should've gotten a chihuahua or similar gay breed

 

[0sacred]

Well then:

I talk about putting "touchy subjects" into games, things like violence or drug use or nudity, and how to approach their inclusion.

The cool thing about playing Arcanum now is that the gameworld feels just fine what with its slavery, capitalism and bloodshed. But even back in the day I didn't care strongly about the world's social issues one way or another. They add flavour to the game but they're not obtrusive.

I don't think Current Year Tim would make as based a game ever again.

 

[NecroLord]

I don't think Current Year Tim would make as based a game ever again.

Hate to admit it, but Tim will more than likely be part of the problem by pushing 'muh social issues into his games...