Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

[Sukeban Cho]

Mrowak

Sorry Cat, but even your definition of Objectivity which you keep using as your anchor in this argument isn't that objective. First, normally the definition is much more narrow, even in philosophy itself. Additionally, as vast as yours is, you cannot rule out that there exist objectivity which cannot be even fathomed by my humans or even splendorous witches.

I never said there was no objective reality. I discussed, instead, that it was impossible for you to grasp, particularly so when discussing values and ideas. That's a demonstrable declaration.

Philosophically and logically speaking something is objective when the conditions for its existence are independent of perception and interpretation. I.E: It is exactly the same regardless of who and what observes it and experiences it.

In other words, which is the part you are not understanding, in philosophy and logic objectivity is that which is true -independently from the mind-.

And trying to argue your values and judgements are true -independently from your mind- is deliciously LOL.

Did I throw a rotten tomato? Really? Maybe I did... But who did it splatter on?

Yup.

You declared their tastes were objectively wrong, which is basically another way of saying they are morons with not taste who need you to enlighten them on what is objectively good. Otherwise this discussion would have not happened, as my entire point was that neither being judgemental jerk nor declaring oneself last beacon of truth in the dark age of iron and delusions implied much objectivity to begin with as you can't prove neither your judgements nor your "truth" true.

So it's a less theological version of "My God's better than you God."

It is a very Codex attitude, alright, but while roleplaying such attitude can be fun in the same way roleplaying an Inquisitor or a member of the ecclesiarchy on Dark Heresy can be, you aren't going to win any debates like that.

I did it because from empiric evidence, studies and my personal experience - all of which is a mixture of mine and collective delusions - the method used there threatens the very foundation of our collective delusion - society.

So? Which means nothing beyond our society not being a static entity but a changing and developing one. Therefore, our society is just like every other society we have observed so far. No shit, really?

Also: If society effectively collapsed because people likes T&A, which I highly doubt would happen but whatever, then the objective truth would be closer to "Society collapsed because people likes T&A" than to "OH SHIT! THE HORROR! NOOOOOO! GANBARE, SOCIETY-CHAN! FAITO! WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! WHYYYYYYYYYY!? WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER TO THE LEGIONS OF DECLINE! WE WILL SPILL TO THE LAST DROP OF BLOOD IN THE TRENCHES OF CULTURAL WARFARE!"

So it may be that societies die every now and then. Mind = Blown. *shrug*

Why should we care about it other than as a chance to observe the life cycle of societies, again?

That idea is: all delusions are valuable and they should not be threatened by a single, dominat one, one which puts everything else below it and potentially destroys the basic channals of exchanging those delusions (communication). You will find the translation in my previous post.

Which is amusing. You were judging them mistaken, and you proposed they were -objectively wrong-. Yet now all delusions are valuable and should not be threatened by a single dominant one? Nigga please.

You either start channeling Furudo Erika ("They are objectively wrong! I wield TRUTH! Therefore, be gone delusions!") or start singing Let the sun shine in. Both attitudes aren't compatible, sowwy.

I just can't help but feel sorry at the people who'll fail to recognise marketing/glamour for what it is (subjective judgment), succumb to its function (it being a hoax) and do something they will likely, in their subjective view, regret later on.

And that is not what you are doing in which way? You have a lot of ideals and beliefs yet have proven none. Therefore, they are delusions and don't exist outside your mind, as even if the conclusions were true you don't know them to be and are instead just having blind faith on them. I.E: You are pretty fast to judge the mistakes of others and slow to judge the way you are exactly like them.

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.

Now you are bloody asking for it.

Ok, so what is the moral of all this? That we judge everything on a subjective basis. That we have to do it in order to live to survive in the world around us that laughs at every corner at the deficiency of our perception.

Probatio Diabolica. It has not been demonstrated that it is needed to judge -everything- in order to live and survive, and even less has it been demonstrated that believing such judgements to be objective and absolute is needed for either.

*shrug*

We create delusions we then exchange with other madmen, and then together we construct even more impressive delusions from what we find in common with each other which creates a fragment we collectively and subjectively call reality (from now on: "collective reality").

In order to do that we need judgment, however.

Probatio Diabolica. It has not been demonstrated such a process is neither necesary nor desireable, and thus the conclusion that we -need- judgement does not hold. *shrug*

Otherwise, where's one's will, again? Where's your will when you deny yourself your judgment? How having shuned your judgment can you face even those small glimpses of objective reality if you can't use the information in any way?

Probatio Diabolica. The existence of "will" has not been demonstrated.

And neither have I claimed that the information couldn't be used. I claimed it was irrational to call such judgements -objective-, and thus that their potentially ilusory nature should never be forgotten lest you descend into madness and irrationality.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. These are the fragments of objective reality which we are "sure" at the given moment in time and we can use to modify the consensual piece and perhaps the objective reality.

Probatio Diabolica. It has not been demonstrated that those "fragments" are in any way related to objective reality, and thus they could as well be more delusions. *shrug*

One is within another... Now collective realities - those can overlap or be completely separated. That's why communication is the key to make realities overlap. Again one of the reasons judgment is important.

You have yet to declare why should we want realities to overlap at all, or care about it.

I really do make my business not to attack people for their beliefs, nor do I feel the constant need to inflate my ego at every corner by "proving" myself "right". I do, however, feel the need to question and doubt and accept nothing at face value which may be the reason we can't quite see eye to eye so often.

You said they were objectively wrong, which is an attack to their beliefs.

And I would dare to say you were not questioning and doubting your own interpretation of it as much as you were questioning and doubting theirs.

Yes! By all means! If you get lucid dreaming to work in subjective construct of reality take the fullest advantage of it! Be bloody awesome just because you can; just because are the one in control; just for the shits and giggles and having a good time or for whatever other reason that catches your fancy!! Do that in whatever subjective reality you want and have a great time! But just make yourself sure you are the one in control, ok? Yes, it's all subjective but being used and thrown away from your dream is no fun at all (unless someone subjectively enjoys it @_@).

I was mostly referring to the fact that as far as your brain and -most- of your body is concerned the things you are experiencing are -real-.

Which in itself makes perfectly valid to question whether anything of what you are experiencing exists at all. Are you the butterfly dreaming to be an engineer, the engineer dreaming to be a butterfly, neither, or both?

And whichever you declare to be, I call pre-emptive Probatio Diabolica just to be mean.



Let's sumarize...

Spoiler

"We have a clear shot, Ma'am!"

"Too easy. Something fishy's going on."

"Nyahahaha! We can take whatever they are planning, it matters not!"

"Reroute all energy to weapons!"

"Aye, aye. Power rerouted, Ma'am."

"Probatio..."

*Oooooooooooooooooom*

"... Diabolicaaaaaaaaa!"

*Weeeeeeeeee...*

*...foooooooooosh!*

"CAAAAAAT!"

*KABOOOM!*

"Yayifications!"

Narrator: Those are the voyages of the starship Philosoraptor...

*credits roll*

Now, I am not trying to be a bitch. What I am trying to do is to demonstrate that -uncertainty- is the only logical posture, and that once you embrace uncertainty you have to drop the judgemental shit because -it has no place-. To declare judgement is to believe oneself able to judge, and the simple fact you have no certainty about -anything- makes that posture inherently retarded.

I never said you should -not- have delusions. I said, instead, you should have all those you want as long as you remember they are delusions. They are tools to pleasure, they are tools to fun, they are tools to adventure, or they are tools to power. However, they -aren't objectively real-.

Which is, I believe, the entire point of reasoning: To cut the delusions -not- to observe the real world, as perception itself is a delusion, but to act as a reminder you shouldn't get stupid and fanatical and too involved in shit because -you don't even know whether or not they exist-. Believe whatever makes you happy and let them believe whatever makes them happy, because the moment you go in a crusade against their worldview you are doing exactly what you claimed you were against: Declaring a single delusion should be dominant over all others. Why? You don't really know, but you are sure it is so.

So chillax.

 

[DragoFireheart]

*Skips most of the posts made*

Aren't games in a sense a reflection of our society? If the game is shit, the people that made it (and buy it) are shit? If the game is amazing, the people that made the game (and buy it) are amazing?

Therefore, if women want these games to have less "sexy" women with scantly clad clothing, wouldn't they need to change the people making/buying them? Wouldn't it be a better use of their energy to make games they feel represents themselves rather than trying to control others and violate their First Right Amendment?

Just saying...

a) "If you don't like it, go make your own" is a lousy response.
b) "First Amendment rights"
I don't think any of them are proposing a US government ban on sexist games. Also freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

1. It's not lousy within the context of this issue. The alternative seems to be that they want to control want developers make.

2. Of course there are consequences for making such games, but there are also consequences for a reaction to those games as well. Developers might be bigots for making the games they do, but complaining about it doesn't do any good since you aren't going to change the minds of these developers if such games are profitable. It's not as though it's a law to buy these games. If it were, the way they are complaining would hold more weight. As it is, since video games are just luxury items, the way they are complaining is pointless.

"Make your own" is in fact a viable response and isn't lousy at all. If they feel there should be more games without boobs n butts content, they should look into starting a company and/or funding someone to make such a game (kickstarter).

 

[Roguey]

1. It's not lousy within the context of this issue. The alternative seems to be that they want to control want developers make.

Telling them to stop being shitty isn't controlling them.

2. Of course there are consequences for making such games, but there are also consequences for a reaction to those games as well. Developers might be bigots for making the games they do, but complaining about it doesn't do any good since you aren't going to change the minds of these developers if such games are profitable. It's not as though it's a law to buy these games. If it were, the way they are complaining would hold more weight. As it is, since video games are just luxury items, the way they are complaining is pointless.

I doubt games with sexist content are profitable because they're sexist. Like if they stopped being sexist, suddenly millions of people would stop buying them. "I was going to buy this but then I saw it didn't have an offensive depiction of women that appeals to me, no sale" What an absurd notion.

"Make your own" is in fact a viable response and isn't lousy at all. If they feel there should be more games without boobs n butts content, they should look into starting a company and/or funding someone to make such a game (kickstarter).

There are plenty of games with no sexist content. The issue is to get the number that do as close to zero as possible.

 

[SCO]

I'd love to see a hardcore morality law applied to games; maybe the man-children that make AAA games today would finally grow the fuck up and finally apply their brian for some subversion (not to mention the audience).

 

[Gakkone]

Just eliminate women from games. Problem solved.

This is a good point. Luckily, minorities like you are already taken into consideration by some developers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aaYjcadKt0

 

[Mrowak]

To be honest Cat, when I read your post today, I entered butthurt mode and procured a gigantic rant. Fortunately, for our mental health a couple of hours on fresh air in blazing heat and a cold shower was enough to restore me to my senses and see the larger picture.

I think what happened my friend was once again the case of terrible miscommunication.

You will remember this:

A very brief retrospective. …
Then we started our banter which touched upon two issues:

1) How putting those ladies in the trailer can/cannot be objectively judged as "wrong"?

And you will remember that it was not so immediatelly followed by this:

In the meantime on account of our incompatible worldviews we made a couple of calls, arbitrary statements and general misunderstandings until we started talking on roughly the same wavelength.

What I meant to say here is that since the time we started discussion point 1) we’ve developed the sufficient understanding of each other’s perspectives.

After the point we agreed on common definition of "objectivity" my idea was not to prove that judgment was objectively possible. My point was to prove that with even with limited knowledge, deficient senses and brain judgment is useful, therefore conversations with the madmen are useful, and therefore every delusion is useful but its usefulness depends on what it is used for. For example you won’t fly high in the sky if you start shaking your arms fast, but you will if you build a flying machine using the delusions which were proven to work in our collective worldview (gravity, aerodynamics, measurements etc.).

In short - not in one place of my post did I refer or mean the general notion of objectivity in the sense thatthis is objectively wrong/good/green.

You will also remember that what followed was this:

You are free, however, to enjoy either, or both, or neither, just don't fucking try to convince me you are being objective about it when your argument is not going to survive its first encounter with basic logic.

As I said many times before, yes I share the same sentiment. Maybe for other reason, but I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't have used the example you quoted.

To paraphrase: Yes, you are totally right. Within the framework of objectivity as defined by you, this is totally true. I’d sign that with both paws. I agree with that, although my own delusion about how this is so is a little bit different - we will discuss those later.

Likewise

That idea is: all delusions are valuable and they should not be threatened by a single, dominat one, one which puts everything else below it and potentially destroys the basic channals of exchanging those delusions (communication). You will find the translation in my previous post.

Which is amusing. You were judging them mistaken, and you proposed they were -objectively wrong-. Yet now all delusions are valuable and should not be threatened by a single dominant one? Nigga please.

Well, this was not supposed to be a hypocritical statement. Rather, because I agreed with you earlier this was the extension of my own view delusion. This shows why I both agree with you why being judgmental just doesn’t cut it, and yet I claim that judgment itself is valuable - for your private and collective subjectivity.

Let me give a hypothetical example to clear that up. It’s slightly extreme, depending on your angle.

There's me and you walking in a city. As we walk we notice a child - a boy crying on the pavement. Let's say that in your mind you feel sorry for the boy and this prompts your action - you want to help the boy, learn what happened to him, perhaps contact the police to find his parents. Before you do that I approach the boy and give him a solid kick in the butt. The reason? In my mind I subjectively perceived the boy's crying as very amusing and to make myself even more happy - by making him cry even louder - I hit him.

The question to you - what your reaction would be to this entire scene? Objectively, what happened is just me kicking a boy? How is that a "bad"/"good" thing? Yes, your judgment would be conditioned by your subjectivity and consensual subjectivity that say "inflicting pain (especially on the defenseless) is bad" or "deriving pleasure from another's suffering is bad". Your judgment could then extrapolate the whole event into possible future scenarios in which you or anyone you know would suffer (collective subjective) because of my finding other people crying pleasant and amusing and then acting upon it. I somehow get the feeling you'd renounce any contact with me on account of your judgment and I (the "real" I who is writing these words) somehow wouldn't be surprised.

In answer to your first Probatio Diabolica. It has been demonstrated that you need to judge *something* in order to live and survive. It has been demonstrated that believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death). This is why judgment is beneficial (and misjudgment is not).

And I would dare to say you were not questioning and doubting your own interpretation of it as much as you were questioning and doubting theirs.

Whose? Cat, please. I cannot doubt my subjective beliefs when I watch a game trailer - there's no one to interact with so I just make or state an opinion and that's it. Otherwise I couldn't even get up from the bed without doubting myself - and I doubt myself I cannot act. I also cannot really doubt them each time I face something that I perceive as adversity - doubts would paralyse me and I’d be unable to act. At the moments of trouble all you can count on is yourself - with all the subjective knowledge, worldviews and emotional baggage you have.

I can start doubting when we have conversation - like this one - which is exactly what it facilitated. I doubted and shifted my perspective many times in order to get your point and I feel wiser for it because I learned many interesting things. This is a mighty good exercise. And I am very grateful to you for that.

To declare judgement is to believe oneself able to judge, and the simple fact you have no certainty about -anything- makes that posture inherently retarded.

Probatio Diabolica. It's your time to objectively prove that this posture is inherently retarded. Start from objectively defining “retarded” and then “inherently”.

Ok, ok - I know you just admited it's "just" your worldview I am exploring.

I never said you should -not- have delusions. I said, instead, you should have all those you want as long as you remember they are delusions. They are tools to pleasure, they are tools to fun, they are tools to adventure, or they are tools to power. However, they -aren't objectively real-.

Thank you BC for sharing with your view on all of this. In return, I will try to paint my delusion. And I have to say that I with many of your beliefs but for different reasons.

You see, I do believe that we are all in our subjective worlds. I do believe are perception is at least impaired (I am not really a fan of "objectivity is outside of any perception" school, because that means that no one knows what objectivity is... other than it is everything beyond our perception... or is it?) and our efforts to perceive anything are quite pathetic. But what I am interested in is something different than you. I am interested in how those poor senses are used to construct the worldviews, how those worldviews are used to build larger constructs which in turn are used to build even larger and larger ones. I am also interested in the process itself - how does it happen? How people become friends, and enemies based on their view, how they use the knowledge of each other and the environments to construct new ideas which have been beyond their reach just a second before. Why am I bothering with this? Because this is the human condition - to be weak and grow strong, to be blind and then reach enlightenment.

And to me things like judgments are the tools for all that. It can help me achieve the desired results within the framework of another larger delusion - the world as we collectively perceive (e.g. when I build a working plane I'll fly; the delusion of me shaking my arms fast and flying just won't work here).

I really don't think that judgment on its own is harmful or that it threaten any delusions you speak of - in order to be harmful it needs someone to act upon the information it provides and use it - either the person who makes the judgment or the one who perceives it. True, on account of our subjectivity we can misuse judgment and this may have fatal consequences. But should that alone mean we ought to shun judgment - be ashamed of it - because it potentially can harm (if we perceived it)? It’s a tool. Tool do not harm on their own.

Besides if I followed your logic to the letter I’d say that on their own opinions can’t do anything as long as the party who perceived them subjectively decided what they are, what qualities do they posses and what emotions do they evoke. Well, that’s at least an option - but we know how ineffective it is.

Which is, I believe, the entire point of reasoning: To cut the delusions -not- to observe the real world, as perception itself is a delusion, but to act as a reminder you shouldn't get stupid and fanatical and too involved in shit because -you don't even know whether or not they exist-.

This little thing I approach differently. The entire point of reasoning is not to cut the delusions but to perceive them with the limited senses you have and take advantage of them to expand your perception (perception is not a delusion - again, subjective). And yes - you shouldn’t get too fanatical or stupid about one particular worldview because all of them have function - all of them have value - so limiting yourself to just one point of view is inviting idleness. That the function of delusions and value in the consensual reality may vary on application is merely a challenge for your knowledge, judgment and communication.

So chillax.

Yeah, those rants of ours are getting the better of us... I mean all of it could be just a delusion or something. Still, I've had my share of fun even if it was "getting involved into something that I don't know even exists". And I think I benefited a lot from it, even though I am guessing it annoyed the hell out of you. Thank you.

 

[Dexter]

Just eliminate women from games. Problem solved.

That won't work, nowadays they start making petitions to demand female representation: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/356467/fans-start-petition-over-aliens-female-snub/

"The ALIENS franchise started the first female action hero," she says. "Women are a big part of the ALIENS universe. The main character, the Queen Alien, the supporting female cast members, and even the United States Colonial Marines has many female marines, roughly close to the same number as men enlisted."

Then the several loud fringe groups start complaining about how X is sexist because the armor has an indentation for primary sexual characteristics, how they don't want to be a princess, how they don't want to be rescued, how they don't want to be "shallow characters" but in-depth personas with wants and needs and just generally how they want things...

Not to forget that apparently every single TV show ever conceived seems to be "deeply sexist" if you go after some of the extreme nutcases, everything from Veronica Mars, The Powerpuff Girls, The Rugrats, Family Guy and fucking LEGO are evil plots of repression against women and out to get them.

(As is customary with people) even amongst them there's different opinions though.
For instance some seem to say that "Bayonetta is considered a great, empowering character, because blah..." while there's others writing the exact opposite: http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bayonetta-and-the-male-gaze/
And for most Lara Croft seems to be "sexism" incarnate, while for others she was considered a great role model and strong/tough female character: http://fictionalprojects.com/2012/06/im-a-person-youre-a-person/

All the while everyone normal plays his/her games about italian plumbers, muscular space marines, latex-wearing superheroes, knights in armor wielding big-ass weapons, apes collecting bananas, genderless meat cubes, abstract shapes or mouse cursors and whatever else and doesn't give a shit. At most they'll complain about shit that actually matters like dumbification of games in general or the general lack of proper story writing or character personalization in games and the growing trend of fleecing customers of every last cent that big publishers seem to be competing in.

I doubt games with sexist content are profitable because they're sexist. Like if they stopped being sexist, suddenly millions of people would stop buying them. "I was going to buy this but then I saw it didn't have an offensive depiction of women that appeals to me, no sale" What an absurd notion.

Boy, must like all the marketers of the entire world be on the wrong train then, if you actually stepped outside or turned on the TV you'd think that pretty people (of both gender) doing or wearing stuff actually sells that stuff, but they apparently got that all wrong... after all everyone knows how great games like Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge, Psychonauts etc. sold to people marketing story, emoshunal engagement and realistic characterization over boobs and violence.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Call it Whoreslayer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation:_Matriarchy

In the 24th century mankind has formed itself into the Federation of Earth, and has colonized several other planets. However, around 2350 a mysterious virus ravages the colony planet of Velia, targeting only the females within the population. They are transformed into brutal killing-machines, while the males are enslaved for use as sustenance or as subjects for genetic experiments. Having now evolved into an aggressive hive mind, the Velians turn on the Federation, instigating a brutal war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoZSmDgGEQE (warning: bargain bin tier opening level)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6P-FnNRLAE (watch this instead)

Gameplay footage from Operation: Matriarchy. From what I can gather, it's about battling a race of mutated robot/alien hybrid (And naturally, quite well-endowed) women who enslave men and use them as "bio material" for genetic experiments and all that fun stuff.

I assure you that this is actual gameplay. This is how it actually looks, sounds, and plays.

http://www.fryingbear.com/crimitism/181725_full.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/236/177699_full.jpg
http://www.devisraad.com/op-m/01b.jpg
that last screenshot shows only what I can describe as a female bio-organic soldier using a heavily mutatated male body as a mech

 

[DragoFireheart]

The issue is to get the number that do as close to zero as possible.

- You're as likely to get rid of sexist games as you are likely to get rid of porn. Good luck with that.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Unless you have emotional engagement women aren't going to play anyway and they are only like 10% of gamers even for the gayest games so who cares.

Actually is currently more like 40%, raising as we go to different genres and art styles until we are talking over 50%, if I am not mixing it up with another percentage.



Mrowak

To paraphrase: Yes, you are totally right. Within the framework of objectivity as defined by you, this is totally true. I’d sign that with both paws. I agree with that, although my own delusion about how this is so is a little bit different - we will discuss those later.

Supernigga, megaplease.

We are discussing Philosophy and Logic. Therefore, we use Objectivity as defined in the contexts of Philosophy and Logic.

And after how much you have mentioned the relative reality of consensual delusions I am sure you will enjoy this.

In answer to your first Probatio Diabolica. It has been demonstrated that you need to judge *something* in order to live and survive. It has been demonstrated that believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death). This is why judgment is beneficial (and misjudgment is not).

Let's assume it has been proven, for the sake of argument.

Even then, the only thing proven by what you just said is "believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death)."

Therefore,

1. We decide misjudgement MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead to death. Okay.
2. We decide judgement MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead people to create and develop shit. Okay.
3. We decide judgement followed by action MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead to change. Okay.

We thus conclude as a result of judgements and misjudgement stuff MAY, or MAY NOT, happen. Alright, that's some objective truth right there.

However, all other declarations are based on assumptions based on what MAY, or MAY NOT, happen. For example: Misjudgement MAY lead to death, okay. Which means it MAY NOT lead to death, and thus it MAY lead to something else. And the same happens with Judgement.

Therefore,

1. Judgement is beneficial? Nigga please.
2. Misjudgement is not beneficial? Nigga please.

Not to mention you are deciding, arbitrarily, that,

1. People dying is inherently bad.
2. People creating and developing shit is inherently good.
3. Change is inherently good.

Who you gonna call? Probatio Diabolica!

Also, define what is judgement and what is misjudgement. Because if you say, for example,

1. Judgement is that which is correct!
2. Misjudgement is that which is not correct!

I'm going to bring the hammer of uncertainty to bear. Without objectively understanding the whole of reality how can you judge correct from not correct? Nigga please.

In other words your entire proposition depends on a set of previous assumptions:

1. A is beneficial.
2. B is not beneficial.
3. Therefore, dongs.

And dispelling arguments from assumptions is -exactly- the purpose of Probatio Diabolica, as I explained in the previous post. Is A really beneficial? Is B really not benefically? Because if it turns out they MAY, or MAY NOT, be beneficial, in the case of A, and not beneficial, in the case of B, the entire argument goes to the ICU.

Anyway, I call Appeal to Probabilities. You are assuming that because something -may- happen, it -will- happen.

This little thing I approach differently. The entire point of reasoning is not to cut the delusions but to perceive them with the limited senses you have and take advantage of them to expand your perception (perception is not a delusion - again, subjective). And yes - you shouldn’t get too fanatical or stupid about one particular worldview because all of them have function - all of them have value - so limiting yourself to just one point of view is inviting idleness. That the function of delusions and value in the consensual reality may vary on application is merely a challenge for your knowledge, judgment and communication.

My bad, as I was saying "cut through the delusions" neither in the sense of dispersing them nor destroying them, but in the sense of going -through- them and seeing them as what they really are, delusions.

For one to use delusions as tools first one has to recognize "truth" as nothing but that, delusions to be used as tools. Which was the entire point of this discussion: By calling something objectively wrong you are buying into the delusions, and as the prettiest and most charming Devil's Advocate -ever- it is my duty to beat some sense into you.

I do believe there is a single -objective truth- though, or as close to objective truth as we can perceive. Uncertainty, itself, can be argued all the way from proposition to conclusion as being absolute, based on some of the very rules that are central to Logic:

1. It is impossible to demonstrate something does not exist.
2. It is impossible to experience anything other than by means of perception.

So you wander through the entire universe looking into every hole, turning every stone, researching every happening, analyzing every bit of information, studying everything that can be studied, etc. More so, you repeat such process through the entire multiverse. Alright? Yet you still can't dispel uncertainty because you can't demonstrate there's no layer of the universe, multiverse, or fundamental reality to which you can't enter, nor you can demonstrate there's nothing there that you can't perceive at all or that you perceptions of everything you studied are actually real, etc.

To talk about -truth- you have to make two assumptions: That there's truth to begin with, first, and that there is nothing more to find and thus you have found it, second. And then Probatio Diabolica happens.

Which is why we can safely consider all things which declare themselves to be truth as irrational. *shrug*

Yeah, those rants of ours are getting the better of us... I mean all of it could be just a delusion or something. Still, I've had my share of fun even if it was "getting involved into something that I don't know even exists". And I think I benefited a lot from it, even though I am guessing it annoyed the hell out of you. Thank you.

I am sorry if I get too hostile from time to time.

And yes, it was fun. And arguing helps me pierce through the mist inside my head and order my thoughts, which is a pretty rare state for me to be in.



And you have to give it to this discussion that it turned out to be a pretty fun inversion on the traditional roles of Witches and Mystery Fans.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

That won't work, nowadays they start making petitions to demand female representation: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/356467/fans-start-petition-over-aliens-female-snub/


Then the several loud fringe groups start complaining about how X is sexist because the armor has an indentation for primary sexual characteristics, how they don't want to be a princess, how they don't want to be rescued, how they don't want to be "shallow characters" but in-depth personas with wants and needs and just generally how they want things...

Not to forget that apparently every single TV show ever conceived seems to be "deeply sexist" if you go after some of the extreme nutcases, everything from Veronica Mars, The Powerpuff Girls, The Rugrats, Family Guy and fucking LEGO are evil plots of repression against women and out to get them.

(As is customary with people) even amongst them there's different opinions though.
For instance some seem to say that "Bayonetta is considered a great, empowering character, because blah..." while there's others writing the exact opposite: http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bayonetta-and-the-male-gaze/
And for most Lara Croft seems to be "sexism" incarnate, while for others she was considered a great role model and strong/tough female character: http://fictionalprojects.com/2012/06/im-a-person-youre-a-person/

I suspect that that the "male gaze" crowd is composed mostly of lesbians. Basically, to them guys looking at them are like to heterosexual guys.
Also, they aren't aware that male characters are designed to be attractive to women just as heterosexual guys aren't aware of it.
So, to them it's like female characters exist solely to attract the creepy male gaze while male characters are completely asexual and unattractive.

 

[BelisariuS.F]

Because humans cannot just simply PICK which experiences will be enjoyable for them (or "switch delusions", as you call it). You cannot say "i will be enjoying Call of Duty" and suddenly your mind starts generating positive feelings while you are playing CoD. It doesn't work that way.

In my experience that's simply not true, but you are free to believe otherwise. That's a very long and very taxing topic to discuss if you have already made up your mind on it not being possible.

I'm really curious how you can do it. You are playing a game and after some hours your are absolutely sure that you feel no enjoyment, but you don't stop playing it and instead somehow you make yourself to feel enjoyment while playing this game. I'm curious how you can do it (without utilizing any techniques like autosuggestion during meditation or similar)(and don't tell me that you don't want to discuss taxing subjects, not in THIS thread).

Women often do just that, especially to go along with their man's interests if they are in love. And don't go all feminist on me everyone knows it's true, women more than men.

This is a different case. In this case the enjoyment doesn't come just from the activity itself, but from doing this activity with someone you love.
And I am talking about making yourself to feel enjoyment while doing something that you've already tried, tried to like it but you felt no enjoyment.

 

[Mrowak]

Well, you know how it is. You just can't help writing those few words in the end...

To paraphrase: Yes, you are totally right. Within the framework of objectivity as defined by you, this is totally true. I’d sign that with both paws. I agree with that, although my own delusion about how this is so is a little bit different - we will discuss those later.

Supernigga, megaplease.

We are discussing Philosophy and Logic. Therefore, we use Objectivity as defined in the contexts of Philosophy and Logic.

Well, you know... Realists would disagree with your definition of objectivity.

It may also be that the objectives of our argument are completely different - that my victory does not exclude your victory. That in reality on of us is not playing chess (Philosophy) but another game altogether even though we are using the same pieces (logic) all the time.

In answer to your first Probatio Diabolica. It has been demonstrated that you need to judge *something* in order to live and survive. It has been demonstrated that believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death). This is why judgment is beneficial (and misjudgment is not).

Let's assume it has been proven, for the sake of argument.

Cat, you are forgetting what I stated before this paragraph:

Objectively, what happened is just me kicking a boy? How is that a "bad"/"good" thing? Yes, your judgment would be conditioned by your subjectivity and consensual subjectivity that say "inflicting pain (especially on the defenseless) is bad" or "deriving pleasure from another's suffering is bad".

Yes, I will never objectively prove that that kicking the child is bad. I will, however, prove that kicking him was bad within certain context - a subjective context. I assume that the boy is genuine, his crying is genuine, me derving the pleasure is genuine, then we can use the judgment. Logically this would be a fallacy but saying that boy isn't there, his cry is not a cry and my pleasure is not genuine.

The problem is we live in those contexts - whether we like it or not, so we might as well take advantage of the contexts we can perceive. For that, we need judgment, just like we need language (again, a very subjective construct) to communicate.

And dispelling arguments from assumptions is -exactly- the purpose of Probatio Diabolica, as I explained in the previous post. Is A really beneficial? Is B really not benefically? Because if it turns out they MAY, or MAY NOT, be beneficial, in the case of A, and not beneficial, in the case of B, the entire argument goes to the ICU.

Anyway, I call Appeal to Probabilities. You are assuming that because something -may- happen, it -will- happen.

Oh this is good. This is awesome. This is exactly my line of thought. So I -MAY- be interacting with you, but I equally -MAY- be delusional at this point. If so, all my constructs for instance the need not to be a jerk -MAY- be not useful for me, so I -MAY- behave like that because it -MAY- not make a difference. However, because the conversation -MAY- be true I subjectively decided not to be a dick - out of concern that you -MIGHT- not like it or that it -MIGHT- slight you. It's a human condition to live in uncertainity, assumptions and lies but it is also to make out most of them. My personal stance here is - do / do not do something because it -MAY- make a difference. Otherwise I may just lie down and do nothing or act like jerks because - hell - why not?

My bad, as I was saying "cut through the delusions" neither in the sense of dispersing them nor destroying them, but in the sense of going -through- them and seeing them as what they really are, delusions.

Hey, hey, hey! That you perceive them as delusions does not mean all of them are delusions. You cannot objectively prove that all that you perceive is a delusion - you can only decide to treat everything as such. Or can you? Be warned, if you declare Probatio Diabolica here we will enter the realm of circular logic, and neither of us will come out of it alive.

For one to use delusions as tools first one has to recognize "truth" as nothing but that, delusions to be used as tools. Which was the entire point of this discussion: By calling something objectively wrong you are buying into the delusions, and as the prettiest and most charming Devil's Advocate -ever- it is my duty to beat some sense into you.

Again: I abandoned the premise of sth being objectively "wrong" the moment we agreed on the definition of objectivity. In common, spoken English "objective" means - free of personal emotional charge. Yes, language itself is subjective... So again arguing by the means of language about objectivity may be simply creating an illusion of it. The same applies to judgment. Does it mean we should eschew them?

I do believe there is a single -objective truth- though, or as close to objective truth as we can perceive.

Welcome to the club.

So you wander through the entire universe looking into every hole, turning every stone, researching every happening, analyzing every bit of information, studying everything that can be studied, etc. More so, you repeat such process through the entire multiverse. Alright? Yet you still can't dispel uncertainty because you can't demonstrate there's no layer of the universe, multiverse, or fundamental reality to which you can't enter, nor you can demonstrate there's nothing there that you can't perceive at all or that you perceptions of everything you studied are actually real, etc.

And I am not here to dispel uncertainty. I am here to collect new delusions and create even better delusions with them which will perform their function in delusional contexts. Uncertainity is to my mind "good" exactly because it allows me for endless possibilities of doing exactly that. Whatever prevents me from doing so by claiming "This is the truth! Those who don't agree, you go to gas chambers!" (e.g. Nazi/Codex propaganda or marketing) is - in my personal opinion - "wrong".

Yeah, those rants of ours are getting the better of us... I mean all of it could be just a delusion or something. Still, I've had my share of fun even if it was "getting involved into something that I don't know even exists". And I think I benefited a lot from it, even though I am guessing it annoyed the hell out of you. Thank you.

I am sorry if I get too hostile from time to time.

Although I perceived some annoyance I also saw some fun... And I subjectively judged that the latter took precedence over the former on account of the simple fact in our consensual reality - we did continue our conversation.

And yes, it was fun. And arguing helps me pierce through the mist inside my head and order my thoughts, which is a pretty rare state for me to be in.

Which is exactly my point - why it pays to listen to other "madmen". You -MAY- benefit from it. If you don't listen to them you certainly won't. I am glad that I did and I am happy that you think you profited as well in the same way. Thus, we are both victorious.

And you have to give it to this discussion that it turned out to be a pretty fun inversion on the traditional roles of Witches and Mystery Fans.

It has been a pleasure.

 

[Roguey]

Boy, must like all the marketers of the entire world be on the wrong train then, if you actually stepped outside or turned on the TV you'd think that pretty people (of both gender) doing or wearing stuff actually sells that stuff, but they apparently got that all wrong... after all everyone knows how great games like Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge, Psychonauts etc. sold to people marketing story, emoshunal engagement and realistic characterization over boobs and violence.

a) You can show off attractive people without being offensive
b) Those games weren't very good. They were kinda decent with unique hooks and even a sexist game like Torment shows that doesn't sell.

The issue is to get the number that do as close to zero as possible.

- You're as likely to get rid of sexist games as you are likely to get rid of porn. Good luck with that.

Which is why I said "as close to zero." I'm sure some basement dwellers will always be making crap, but it needs to be gone from the mainstream multi-million things. And it's not as if there hasn't been any progress at all regarding problematic elements in fiction during the last century. There should never be a point where we decide "Okay, this is good enough, let's stop trying."

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think that there should be mandatory multi-million dollar Fallout-like cRPGs. There was enough of that Call of Duty crap.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Mrowak

Originally I went paragraph per paragraph, answering every thingie and every stuffie. Then I read it again before posting and I noticed I was more or less channeling a different Black Cat.

Spoiler

So I'm not answering anything else you have to say on the topic, otherwise I'm going to get carried away and when the dust settles I'm going to have one less online friend.






BelisariuS.F

I'm really curious how you can do it. You are playing a game and after some hours your are absolutely sure that you feel no enjoyment, but you don't stop playing it and instead somehow you make yourself to feel enjoyment while playing this game. I'm curious how you can do it (without utilizing any techniques like autosuggestion during meditation or similar)(and don't tell me that you don't want to discuss taxing subjects, not in THIS thread).

Self indoctrination, self hypnosis, clear punishments and rewards, brainwashing techniques, constant vigilance of the pattern of thought and emotion emerging in your mind as to destroy those forbidden before they can take root and become habit, etc, backed by a very strong will and a worldview that recognizes there's only victory or anihilation. I can go into detail in both the methods I personally use and the methods other use if you want, as long as we keep this purely theoretical. It is neither nice nor cuddly, and I don't want bleeding hearts jumping on the topic and telling me to find my heart.

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak

Originally I went paragraph per paragraph, answering every thingie and every stuffie. Then I read it again before posting and I noticed I was more or less channeling a different Black Cat.

Spoiler

Why am I not surprised? Well, it's a part of your charm I guess.

So I'm not answering anything else you have to say on the topic, otherwise I'm going to get carried away and when the dust settles I'm going to have one less online friend.

Yeah, the urge to get the final word can do that to people(look at my previous post). I guess we've just said everything there was to say and objectively proving me wrong won't change anything. However, I doubt I'd rage at all or anything. And to be perfectly honest, proving you wrong was never my goal.

See you in your LP threads.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Why am I not surprised? Well, it's a part of your charm I guess.

You already know how it goes...

Spoiler

Witches = Trolls.

And they take debate REALLY seriously.

So it is only natural.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Just eliminate women from games. Problem solved.

Feminists will love this game.

No stereotyping of women, because they are excluded altogether.

 

[Kane]

I LOVE ASS AND TITS AND I WILL DESTROY EVERYONE THAT MAKES THEM GO AWAY

 

[SCO]

Got just the game for you then


Enjoy being treated as a state machine

 

[mondblut]

There should never be a point where we decide "Okay, this is good enough, let's stop trying."

Who are those "we" you keep talking about?

Chill, dude, play some Rapelay like a man.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

a sexist game like Torment

Lolwhat?

Oh right. Feminism.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

I will now exercise the toxic hereditary of my privileged patriarchal position to enjoy me some space moose comics

come on ladies I don't suddenly hate you all when I don't get laid so why all this stuff jeez

 

[Kane]

The sad part about it all is that she's probably butt ugly and craving for attention and sex in her life, that is devoid of any love and careing because her pointless hatred has blinded her and turned away those that tried to get through to her.


What a waste.