Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

[Angthoron]

Mozgoëbstvo

Well thing is, in the end you won't be able to sway most people's opinions no matter how well you try. Ideologies run so deep these days that a person starts imbibing them with mother's milk, and then just keeps on getting more and more of it piled into their heads. Everything's highly political - society, history, literature, gaming - pretty much everything feeds you some manner of world view, and thing is, it's enormously difficult to question it, and normally, when you do, you're just given a placebo - you become a teenage rebel, or an internet warrior, or another role or type that is again influenced by certain reactionary ideologies in turn.

Basically what you have right now, with the FEMALE GAMER UPRISING is a yet another ideology package marketed/forced down on to the denizens of the Internet of all cultures. Think of it as a tremendous cultural sabotage if you will.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Mozgoëbstvo

Well thing is, in the end you won't be able to sway most people's opinions no matter how well you try. Ideologies run so deep these days that a person starts imbibing them with mother's milk, and then just keeps on getting more and more of it piled into their heads. Everything's highly political - society, history, literature, gaming - pretty much everything feeds you some manner of world view, and thing is, it's enormously difficult to question it, and normally, when you do, you're just given a placebo - you become a teenage rebel, or an internet warrior, or another role or type that is again influenced by certain reactionary ideologies in turn.

Basically what you have right now, with the FEMALE GAMER UPRISING is a yet another ideology package marketed/forced down on to the denizens of the Internet of all cultures. Think of it as a tremendous cultural sabotage if you will.

Indeed, you couldn't be more correct. That's why my point went more to emphasizing another channel for betterment - instead of trying to move into a crusade that can become, as you said, even marketable, and simply annoys people.
That channel, in my opinion, lies into trying to dedicate ourselves to our constant, endless, even if slow, personal bettement.

Things such as trying to be mindful of your thoughts, your words, and your actions, which are all more powerful than we'd think. That's why we can unwittingly hurt people with words or actions we weren't mindful of.

So, instead of trying to "politically" or ideologically trying to better society by estabilishing some utopia... I think we have to start from the basic construction material, people. If people don't get better (and don't even try), society can't either, no matter how many campaigns you launch - either on Facebook or with your very real south american revolutionary army.

So yeah, Angthoron, I don't know if you got my point, but I got yours and I basically agree with pretty much all you're saying (and I found another highly intelligent poster. Yay!).
But, correct me if I'm wrong, you think the situation in this and that's it. Where I diverge is the next step: for me it doesn't necessarily have to be like that.

It was enjoyable discussing, Ang.

 

[Angthoron]

So yeah, Angthoron, I don't know if you got my point, but I got yours and I basically agree with pretty much all you're saying (and I found another highly intelligent poster. Yay!).
But, correct me if I'm wrong, you think the situation in this and that's it. Where I diverge is the next step: for me it doesn't necessarily have to be like that.

Yeah, I get your point as well. It's a little long-winded if you excuse me for saying so, I personally prefer a bit of a more compact approach - easier to digest it if it's compact, but that's just stylistics, anyway.

And nah, I don't think that that's all to it, I don't subscribe to the passive stance of quiet whining.

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

So yeah, Angthoron, I don't know if you got my point, but I got yours and I basically agree with pretty much all you're saying (and I found another highly intelligent poster. Yay!).
But, correct me if I'm wrong, you think the situation in this and that's it. Where I diverge is the next step: for me it doesn't necessarily have to be like that.

Yeah, I get your point as well. It's a little long-winded if you excuse me for saying so, I personally prefer a bit of a more compact approach - easier to digest it if it's compact, but that's just stylistics, anyway.

And nah, I don't think that that's all to it, I don't subscribe to the passive stance of quiet whining.

Well, someday I'd be curious to hear about it.
But another time, another thread (or a PM, perhaps?).
If y'all excuse me, I have to perform the sacred duty of dishwashing.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

@ Mrowak (hey, how do I do that magic thingie to summon you when writting your username?)

I believe this is the core of our inability to see eye to eye on this topic:

Or how about we show the stone to others and collectively determine what it really is, and what uses it can have?

Let's say you have a locked box that can't be opened. Based on what can be observed about the box, about what you discover about who made the box, about those by whose hands the box went by, etc, you elaborate a theory on what the purpose of the box is, and others do the same. Then you all meet in forums and clubs to discuss your pet theories until you all start reaching a consensus on what the box contains. Is that consensus the truth? No, it is still nothing but a delusion and it is worth just as much, or as little, as the initial delusion you created yourself. The process added nothing but a mixture of Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam to it.

If a box can never be opened, it is impossible to know what it contains. It is impossible to prove your delusion is real (as the only definitive proof is to open the box and see what it contains) and it is impossible to disprove someone else's delusion (as it is impossible to prove the non existence of something).

Which brings us to...

Or is it good for them... objectively...?

It is impossible for something to be objectively good, as something being "good" is your interpretation of a series of events and their result. If I get a big chainsaw and turn you into seventeen little and chunky Mrowaks, the objective truth is that I took a chainsaw and turned you into seventeen little, chunky, bloody Mrowaks. PROVE to me that it was bad without using previous assumptions and personal interpretations, as in "If we asume pain is bad, then that was bad."

Otherwise, the objectivity of right and wrong just died a very painful death.

Which is the crux of my argument: Their delusion is as right and wrong as your own, as both of you are doing nothing but attribute arbitrary undemostrable values to objects that have, in themselves, no inherent value beyond being objects.



I find kind of amusing our arguments always come back to the exact same topic.

On that topic, did you finally went and read Umineko's final chapter or you still haven't?

 

[Icewater]

Mozgoëbstvo

Well thing is, in the end you won't be able to sway most people's opinions no matter how well you try. Ideologies run so deep these days that a person starts imbibing them with mother's milk, and then just keeps on getting more and more of it piled into their heads. Everything's highly political - society, history, literature, gaming - pretty much everything feeds you some manner of world view, and thing is, it's enormously difficult to question it, and normally, when you do, you're just given a placebo - you become a teenage rebel, or an internet warrior, or another role or type that is again influenced by certain reactionary ideologies in turn.

Basically what you have right now, with the FEMALE GAMER UPRISING is a yet another ideology package marketed/forced down on to the denizens of the Internet of all cultures. Think of it as a tremendous cultural sabotage if you will.

Shit homes, I'd fist you thrice if I could.

I'll just have to dig up a few more posts of yours, then.

 

[hiver]

Sukeban Cho

(you do this either by writing @ right next to the name, without space in between, or just by directly copy-pasting someones nickname)http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?members/sukeban-cho.15088/
Mrowak


I hate to butt in you two, but... just a couple of observations.

Why the hell not? That games have changed the society and the way we perceive each other is an objective fact. Look at us now - discussing stuff on an internet forum - two strangers from two different countries having some serious annoyance and fun (at least in my case) over... games. Information flows and we organize ourselves in groups which do affect the real marketing politics of companies.

We already doing changing the society to some measure - maybe not only by boycotting but generally talking about we find wrong. Our Codexian "whining" helped to kick start projects such as Wasteland 2. Thousands of people are starting to come around to our collective viewpoint that there's something wrong with gaming. There are real objectively observed results of that. It's people talking about the issue that drove this change. We could not achieve this if we just waited for someone to conduct an objective research whose results - to be valid - had to be measured for a number of years. No, we did that by coming out and sharing are largely biased views, sharpening them until we've achieved what we have now. It is still imperfact but it gets its job done and pushes the change into the direction we appreciate.

I could argue discussing anything that goes beyond objective facts is pointless because interpretation is always illusion until it has been objectively demonstrated, moment in which it stops being interpretation (and thus interpretation is ALWAYS ilussion).

That would not be very sporty of me, though.

Nor would it be actually correct.

let me try...

Subjective interpretation is not always just an illusion that exists in pure vacuum and doesnt have any influence over anything else.
Subjective interpretations are what influences human behavior in reality - thus they become reality.

i could write examples ranging from Alexander the great to Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, fascism, racism, misogyny, misandry, Nikola Tesla, Alber Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci to.... particular games or movies we like and so on and so on...
whatever they did or created was fueled by their subjective interpretations of specific issues or history or science or entertainment or whatever they were involved with.

What you think affects how you behave, what you do, what you learn, where you direct yourself, what you achieve, how you influence others... and many other things.
Not always, of course but... i would say most of the time it does.

It is impossible for something to be objectively good, as something being "good" is your interpretation of a series of events and their result. If I get a big chainsaw and turn you into seventeen little and chunky Mrowaks, the objective truth is that I took a chainsaw and turned you into seventeen little, chunky, bloody Mrowaks. PROVE to me that it was bad without using previous assumptions and personal interpretations, as in "If we asume pain is bad, then that was bad."

I can prove it and Mrowak can too, but it depends on whether you will accept the proof.

I will go for the angle that by dissecting Mrowak into seventeen little, chunky, bloody Mrowaks you will not only cause him immense pain and suffering he did not deserve by anything at all, but you will hurt anyone else caring for him, his parents, his girl or a wife and his children.
If he doesnt have children now you will destroy his chance of ever having them. If he has them then you will destroy their lives, as much as destroying the lives of his parents or people that loved him. (sure, the kids will live on... but dont say to me you know the exact consequences these hypothetical kids will go through).
Its not just "hurt" that someone feels and then it goes away. It doesnt go away. Not really. You physically change peoples existence and their purpose in life.
(Whether you can make yourself simply not care about any of it is irrelevant and will have negative consequences of its own further down the line.)

In the words of a man much better then me:

When you take a mans life, you Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

hiver

Subjective interpretation is not always just an illusion that exists in pure vacuum and doesnt have any influence over anything else.
Subjective interpretations are what influences human behavior in reality - thus they become reality.

Of course, I have not denied that. I am saying pretty much the same: Reality is a subjective structure based on the arbitrary interpretation of objects. This does not make it -false-, as it is real for those who experiment it and, thus, has real effects on them, yet at the same time it isn't -true-.

Thus it is hypocrital to talk of right and wrong outside of obvious truths that need no interpretation (i.e: Train vs me = One train and two dozen of me).

i could write examples ranging from Alexander the great to Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, fascism, racism, misogyny, misandry, Nikola Tesla, Alber Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci to.... particular games or movies we like and so on and so on...
whatever they did or created was fueled by their subjective interpretations of specific issues or history or science or entertainment or whatever they were involved with.

What you think affects how you behave, what you do, what you learn, where you direct yourself, what you achieve, how you influence others... and many other things.
Not always, of course but... i would say most of the time it does.

As I said I am not saying delusions can't affect the lives of thousands. On the contrary, I am saying most of the things that affect the lives of thousands are delusions. A great man believed in X, he made others share his belief, the world was changed. That does not mean, however, that X was neither real nor true.

But there's a little something that's important to understand: The values we attribute to a certain result or series of events is also subjective, and also a delusion. Events and results have no intrinsic value, the value is given to it by the observers themselves. So talking about a certain potential development being wrong or right is never objective, a certain potential development simply -is-.

And thus something can't be "wrong for them... objectively" because -wrong- does not exist outside of the observer, and thus is inherently subjective.

I can prove it and Mrowak can too, but it depends on whether you will accept the proof.

By "proof" I understand we are talking about "proven beyond the shadow of doubt." Our discussions tend to be on, say, debate club modo.

So if a single assumption (other than those declared as true at the begining as part of the exercise) is required to get at the conclusion then the conclusion isn't -truth-.

I will go for the angle that by dissecting Mrowak into seventeen little, chunky, bloody Mrowaks you will not only cause him immense pain and suffering he did not deserve by anything at all, but you will hurt anyone else caring for him, his parents, his girl or a wife and his children.
If he doesnt have children now you will destroy his chance of ever having them. If he has them then you will destroy their lives, as much as destroying the lives of his parents or people that loved him. (sure, the kids will live on... but dont say to me you know the exact consequences these hypothetical kids will go through).
Its not just "hurt" that someone feels and then it goes away. It doesnt go away. Not really. You physically change peoples existence and their purpose in life.
(Whether you can make yourself simply not care about any of it is irrelevant and will have negative consequences of its own further down the line.)

And there is where things may get shady: Nothing of what you mentioned is objectively -wrong-, as for it to be wrong it requires the existence of a previous assumption. Objectively speaking it just -is-. It is us who declare it wrong, yet as it can't be demonstrated that something is objectively wrong our belief in the wrongness of it is a delusion, as it has no basis on reality, regardless of how good our lives become because of it.

In one hand we have: This is a dog.

In the other we have: This dog is pretty and totally huggable.

The first is an objective statement, the second isn't.

Going back to dividing someone,

In one hand we have: She is killing someone.

In the other hand we have: She is doing wrong.



However, this is going off the rails. My point originally was... Let me see, I kind of forgot...

Ah, yes. It would be like this: Objectively speaking a delusion is a delusion, and the value you attribute to such is your subjective interpretation of it. He was implying their delusion (their interpretation of reality) was -objectively wrong-, and thus implying wrongness and right, uhm, ness have an objective reality.

So I call Probatio Diabolica. It is impossible to demonstrate, beyond the shadow of doubt, something does not exist at all. It is however possible to demonstrate something -exists-, and thus both in debate and in law the burden of proof is always on the side claiming the existence of something.

If he can't do that then they are as right playing games about slutty nun assasins and he is by not playing them, and then everyone accepts everyone else's right to play whatever they want and oogle whatever they want, and we all live in a happy hippy paradise.

With lots and lots of bunnies jumping everywhere. :3

 

[GarfunkeL]

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2010/04/creating-‘equal-occupational-fatality-day’-occurs-next-in-2021/

And this, since you asked for a source. Go on, confronts sources for Europe, and similar numbers will pop up all over the place.

Let's see then, since I'm not sure if Kwa is especially fucked. Here's the statistics from Finland, 2009:
http://www.stat.fi/til/ttap/2009/ttap_2009_2011-11-30_tau_002_fi.html

26 people lost their lives in an occupational hazard - 22 men, 4 women. So your earlier claim about "90%" seems to be pretty correct. Now you just need to find some feminist group that demands 50% of Administrative jobs to be allocated to women and you have me convinced.

 

[hiver]

Of course more men die in such jobs. Women are discouraged and not accepted in those kinds of jobs.
Which is of course a positive consequence misogyny produces, and there are many other similar to it.

But assuming that all women who argue against it do not realize those risks is not correct at all. Many of them know the risks and would still apply. Many would not but, many men also dont.

Sukeban Cho

I understand what youre saying perfectly fine.

I am saying pretty much the same: Reality is a subjective structure based on the arbitrary interpretation of objects.

Ahh... but it isnt.
As you have said yourself, whatever you think about gravity you will still splatter over the ground if you jump from a building (paraphrased).
What we say and think about reality may be subjective in some cases but that does not make THE REALITY a subjective structure.

Thus it is hypocrital to talk of right and wrong outside of obvious truths that need no interpretation

There is many such obvious truths.

But there's a little something that's important to understand: The values we attribute to a certain result or series of events is also subjective, and also a delusion. Events and results have no intrinsic value, the value is given to it by the observers themselves. So talking about a certain potential development being wrong or right is never objective, a certain potential development simply -is-.

Nope.

It depends from situation to situation. It depends on circumstances and consequences of the situations themselves.
Events and results do have a value.

Intrinsic? What does intrinsic mean anyway... in your subjective interpretation of it all? Because what youre saying here IS a subjective interpretation made by you.
Thus... youre creating an oxymoron and defeating your position yourself.
Since all of what you say in this quote i took is a subjective interpretation you just made.

And thus something can't be "wrong for them... objectively" because -wrong- does not exist outside of the observer, and thus is inherently subjective.

Nope. There are things that are in fact wrong - judged by all we know about ourselves, other people, reality and everything in between.

Sure its complicated and sometimes its not clear cut. That doesnt create some general rule where nothing matters and everything is fine and dandy.

By "proof" I understand we are talking about "proven beyond the shadow of doubt." Our discussions tend to be on, say, debate club modo.

So if a single assumption (other than those declared as true at the begining as part of the exercise) is required to get at the conclusion then the conclusion isn't -truth-.

That is only true if you make several assumptions of your own that supposedly support your side of it.

And there is where things may get shady: Nothing of what you mentioned is objectively -wrong-, as for it to be wrong it requires the existence of a previous assumption. Objectively speaking it just -is-.

No.
What i described is objectively wrong, by all standards and reality we humans perceive and live in.
If youre going to judge this by some other standards - then they are irrelevant and nothing more than imaginary excuses.

In one hand we have: This is a dog.
In the other we have: This dog is pretty and totally huggable.
The first is an objective statement, the second isn't.

That is true, but we didnt talk about whether a dog is huggable or not.

Thats why i said these things depend of the exact situation, circumstances and consequences of it all.

Going back to dividing someone,
In one hand we have: She is killing someone.
In the other hand we have: She is doing wrong.

ah... but things are not so simple and your not taking consequences into consideration at all.

First issue is whether your killing someone out of some necessity or not.
And the second "assumption" depends on those facts and then on consequences of the act in their entirety.

However, this is going off the rails. My point originally was... Let me see, I kind of forgot...
Ah, yes. It would be like this: Objectively speaking a delusion is a delusion, and the value you attribute to such is your subjective interpretation of it.

but that is just your subjective interpretation of it all...

And if you plot just the most obvious consequences of such thinking onto humanity as it is.... you end up with complete chaotic violent anarchy apocalypse.

So I call Probatio Diabolica. -

If he can't do that then they are as right playing games about slutty nun assassins and he is by not playing them, and then everyone accepts everyone else's right to play whatever they want and oogle whatever they want, and we all live in a happy hippy paradise.

I dont think that is the problem here, really.

These examples of lowest common denominator game design will always exist. They will always be made.
And people will always play and oogle whatever they want, men and female, both. While many wont.

Mrowak isnt arguing against that at all.
But i will let him explain his position further in detail.

The issue here is more about whether such design is lowest common denominator, or put simply trash - or it isnt?
I say it is. And it is pretty blatant stupid and utterly cheap trash.

Those nuns are sexy to me, of course they are, i can and probably will oogle them or whatever... but thats not all there is to it.
You have these ultra-sexy nuns... and then what do you do with them? You kill them? In horrible ways?
and thats it?

... a what the fuck?

Im not allowed to call that cheap, stupid, retarded trash? Pondering to the lowest common denominator? Or it somehow isnt? Just because there will be people enjoying it without firing a single synapse thinking about anything more then "tits! asses! sexy! violence! blood! death! grrrhrhrhrhr!"


The issue is ... what happens when we stop considering trash - trash?
Are we selling ourselves short? Conforming to preferences of other people just because they like trash?
Will we then ever get anything different, better?

 

[Sukeban Cho]

hiver

Ahh... but it isnt.
As you have said yourself, whatever you think about gravity you will still splatter over the ground if you jump from a building (paraphrased).

I was talking about the perception of reality. You can demonstrate the objective existence of gravity, you can't demonstrate the objective existence of right or wrong. Thus right and wrong might be real for you, but they have no objective existence.

Nope.

It depends from situation to situation. It depends on circumstances and consequences of the situations themselves.
Events and results do have a value.

But the value is subjective, which is the point.

Nope. There are things that are in fact wrong - judged by all we know about ourselves, other people, reality and everything in between.

Probatio Diabolica. Demonstrate there are things which are objectively wrong.

That is only true if you make several assumptions of your own that supposedly support your side of it.

Mention the assumptions I am making.

No.
What i described is objectively wrong, by all standards and reality we humans perceive and live in.
If youre going to judge this by some other standards - then they are irrelevant and nothing more than imaginary excuses.

You said it yourself: "What I described is OBJECTIVELY wrong, by all standards and reality we humans PERCEIVE and live in."

Thus is not objectively wrong, as its existence depends on perception.

First issue is whether your killing someone out of some necessity or not.
And the second "assumption" depends on those facts and then on consequences of the act in their entirety.

It is irrelevant.

I quote from a random dictionary, on Objective: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

Therefore objective fact is that I killed someone. That such killing was right or wrong is your interpretation, and thus subjective.

Otherwise, probatio diabolica. Show me the existence of absolute right and absolute wrong.

but that is just your subjective interpretation of it all...

Point at the subjective element.

And if you plot just the most obvious consequences of such thinking onto humanity as it is.... you end up with complete chaotic violent anarchy apocalypse.

Ad Consequentiam. The long term consequences of a given declaration being true are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is true. ¬_¬U

The issue here is more about whether such design is lowest common denominator, or put simply trash - or it isnt?
I say it is. And it is pretty blatant stupid and utterly cheap trash.

Sure. They are pretty blatant stupid and utterly cheap trash to you, that's fine. That does not make them objectively so, which was the point.

The issue is ... what happens when we stop considering trash - trash?

Ad Consequentiam. What happens if we stop considering trash what you consider trash is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is objectively trash. ¬_¬U



Gee, you are going to end up hating me like this.

 

[Mrowak]

@ Mrowak (hey, how do I do that magic thingie to summon you when writting your username?)

Put @ and insert_name together, without space.

I believe this is the core of our inability to see eye to eye on this topic:

Or how about we show the stone to others and collectively determine what it really is, and what uses it can have?

Let's say you have a locked box that can't be opened. Based on what can be observed about the box, about what you discover about who made the box, about those by whose hands the box went by, etc, you elaborate a theory on what the purpose of the box is, and others do the same. Then you all meet in forums and clubs to discuss your pet theories until you all start reaching a consensus on what the box contains. Is that consensus the truth? No, it is still nothing but a delusion and it is worth just as much, or as little, as the initial delusion you created yourself. The process added nothing but a mixture of Ad Populum and Ad Verecundiam to it.

If a box can never be opened, it is impossible to know what it contains. It is impossible to prove your delusion is real (as the only definitive proof is to open the box and see what it contains) and it is impossible to disprove someone else's delusion (as it is impossible to prove the non existence of something).

But this is actually what we do every day - do the guesswork based on insufficient amount of variables that can change on the fly.

Besides, we are not discussing something which is inside the box - we are discussing the box itself (e.g. a game, or the phenomenon of inserting scantly clad ladies is game trailers) - or rather its perceptible qualities and make collective judgments as to how useful they make the box. Some may say the box is quite pretty and whatever is inside it makes a nice sound so it can just sit on the fireplace. Others (Codexers) would argue that because you cannot access its contents, or fill it with anything the box is quite useless and there's no point in filling the house with another useless item. Both judgments are perfectly fine and depend on utility of the item for particular individual. No one's calling each other names at this point.

Now, our typical Codexer gets the box number 2, 3, 4, 5 and they are all the same - they look pretty but you can't put anything in them. Something is clearly “wrong” here. It appears that because boxes are liked by majority of people the company that makes them doesn't bother to have them open or serve any purpose other than looking pretty. Others may be fine with filling their houses with more useless (in the eyes of our Codexer) boxes - they buy them because they are so beautiful after all. From the company's standpoint making useful boxes would require more effort and money - the cost of locks, keys and hinges, and all - fair enough - that's understandable. Now what Codexer can't quite understand is why other people out there do not want the box to be openable. Codexer argues that it could be useful, at which point he gets attacked by box's fans that it would completely destroy artistic integrity or "depth" of the box (which - Codexer realizes - has none because it cannot be opened). He is completely baffled at the question how storing things in a box can be useful? He gets grumpy and butthurt. Here's where is our conflict stands.

So what the Codexer has to do? Be quiet, because majority likes the boxes as they are? Or try to inflict some pressure - show that boxes are even better as utilities, pester the companies about actually making useful boxes, talk with others and through trial and error realise that boxes can be both beautiful and useful. Mind you - all of that will spark of a backlash from box-defenders.

Yes, it is a gross oversimplification. Yes, I know that it is impossible to determine objectively anything without empirical evidence to support it (it was your point to begin with). But then again how can you objectively prove that storing things in a box is useful? Maybe someone doesn't want to store items - his subjective decision - how you will prove that to him? Ok, but does this mean I should just stand here and take no action when we feel something went totally "wrong" or could be done “better”. Speaking of good/bad/wrong....

Which brings us to...

Or is it good for them... objectively...?

It is impossible for something to be objectively good, as something being "good" is your interpretation of a series of events and their result.

If I get a big chainsaw and turn you into seventeen little and chunky Mrowaks, the objective truth is that I took a chainsaw and turned you into seventeen little, chunky, bloody Mrowaks. PROVE to me that it was bad without using previous assumptions and personal interpretations, as in "If we asume pain is bad, then that was bad."
Otherwise, the objectivity of right and wrong just died a very painful death.

I really cannot prove how slicing me into pieces would be wrong without any anchor point and I doubt you will accept mine, but here I go:

Now subjectively I *know* ending up plastered all over the floor is wrong, and I am not interested in anything else beyond that. I also understand that because for me staying in one piece is subjectively critical, I can suspect, that should I encounter you, you will be equally interested in staying in one piece. I may be wrong - you may prove to be a peculiar kind of suicidal alien - but this is the extent of the subjective knowledge I posses and I will use it to the full capacity. Of course, I could just make sure you don't want to chainsawed just by asking. If you insisted that slicing me into those 17 chunky pieces is the best course of action and yet wouldn't want to be sliced yourself, because it would end your life, which for you would be as personally (subjectively) important as mine own to me, then one could argue that based on the facts we know about one another, there is a mismatch here. This kind of mismatch was called "wrong"/"unfair" because we - whether there are just two of us, whole groups, societies, nations - agreed that this is what those words mean in this context - based on what we share in common. The fact is: there’s a mismatch, ergo something is wrong. This is where objectivity is born.

Yes, I said that - subjectivity comes first. Only then you can be objective. Our senses my deceive us, our knowledge may be incomplete, our measuring tools may have different scales than the measuring tools of other people. All we can work on, on our own is our feelings and beliefs coupled with previously acquired objective knowledge. So what? The simplest conclusion is that each objective information stems from collective agreement - that this or that is true. This agreement is further strengthened by other objective observations we all agreed were true before e.g. units of measurement (For example, 1 nautical mile is how many meters exactly? 1853,18 m in UK, 1851,85 m in the Netherlands, 1850,00 in Portugal etc. Until you learn which scale you are using and how to transform one set of units to another it is all subjective - for your own country). After all, on their own one centimeter, one liter or one unit of are completely subjective and thus meaningless in larger contexts.

Which is the crux of my argument: Their delusion is as right and wrong as your own, as both of you are doing nothing but attribute arbitrary undemostrable values to objects that have, in themselves, no inherent value beyond being objects.

So, because their opinion is as valid as mine own - it exists in their own head, after all - making any judgments upon learning it is pointless? But this alone won’t stop me from making the judgment on account of my subjectivity - it sort of happens, just like it happens when seeing an attractive guy/girl. It is a natural reaction which can tell me a great deal about you.

For instance, if you heard the opinion: “all Japanese music is stupid”, what would you think of its author? There’s no objective yard stick here. His opinion is contrasted with your own and that’s it.

Well, we’ve gone a full circle. o_O

On that topic, did you finally went and read Umineko's final chapter or you still haven't?

I actually reinstalled the whole thing a week ago but haven’t touched it since.It feels strange that I breezed through parts 1-4, went with parts 3-7 more slowly, and now when the journey is almost over I just somehow don't feel like it now.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Mrowak

Yes, it is a gross oversimplification. Yes, I know that it is impossible to determine objectively anything without empirical evidence to support it (it was your point to begin with). But then again how can you objectively prove that storing things in a box is useful? Maybe someone doesn't want to store items - his subjective decision - how you will prove that to him? Ok, but does this mean I should just stand here and take no action when we feel something went totally "wrong" or could be done “better”.

My point wasn't that you shouldn't do this or that. My point was that you saying "they are wrong" is as valid as them saying you are. The main thing I have been discussing is you saying they were objectively wrong.

That and asking a question which is interesting to me: Subjective reality is a delusion that doesn't exist outside of your mind, and as your mind created or formed the delusion it can alter it. What's the point, then, in not changing the form and nature of that delusion to the one that would bring more joy, fun, and pleasure instead of one that makes you grumpy and sad?

In other words,

1. There's an object here.
2. You give this object a subjective value.
3. That subjective value makes you unhappy.

Why not seek to change the subjective value you are giving the object, or the way your personal delusion interpretates the object, to find things happier and more fulfilling instead of being like the old guy in a peremnial bad mood?

Say, your objective is pleasure. Videogames are a tool to that objective. Thus...

1. You can wait for them to make the games you find enjoyable and lack the pleasure videogames could give you until then.
2. You can change the subjective "prism" through which you observe reality so that the games they make give you pleasure.

So I wonder, why 1 instead of 2? I seriously can't understand the posture, and even less when we can argue the delusion in 1. was imposed on you by previous experiences and context while 2. is actually your own will becoming manifest.

Now subjectively I *know* ending up plastered all over the floor is wrong, and I am not interested in anything else beyond that. I also understand that because for me staying in one piece is subjectively critical, I can suspect, that should I encounter you, you will be equally interested in staying in one piece. I may be wrong - you may prove to be a peculiar kind of suicidal alien - but this is the extent of the subjective knowledge I posses and I will use it to the full capacity. Of course, I could just make sure you don't want to chainsawed just by asking. If you insisted that slicing me into those 17 chunky pieces is the best course of action and yet wouldn't want to be sliced yourself, because it would end your life, which for you would be as personally (subjectively) important as mine own to me, then one could argue that based on the facts we know about one another, there is a mismatch here. This kind of mismatch was called "wrong"/"unfair" because we - whether there are just two of us, whole groups, societies, nations - agreed that this is what those words mean in this context - based on what we share in common. The fact is: there’s a mismatch, ergo something is wrong. This is where objectivity is born.

I already posted the definition of objective in this context, so I am not going there again.

Now, you all agree to give this thing a value that has no existence outside of you and create a consensual delusion. There's nothing objective on that, only a shared subjectivity. If objectivity would be consensual, it would not be -objective-. The moment you interpretate something, the moment you give anything a value, the relationship between you and it stoped being objective.

So, because their opinion is as valid as mine own - it exists in their own head, after all - making any judgments upon learning it is pointless? But this alone won’t stop me from making the judgment on account of my subjectivity - it sort of happens, just like it happens when seeing an attractive guy/girl. It is a natural reaction which can tell me a great deal about you.

I did not say that. I said there is no objective value in there. Go ahead and give it all the subjective value you want.

However, what's the point on a delusional madman passing judgement on other delusional madman? It does sound kind of pointless. *shrug*

In other words identifying a certain thing as ilusory doesn't impede you from enjoying that thing, yet it makes kind of foolish to actually fight over it or suffer about it. If the fighting over it causes you pleasure, go ahead. But if it makes you grumpy or sad, what's the point?

You are grumpy or sad over something that -doesn't exists-.

I actually reinstalled the whole thing a week ago but haven’t touched it since.It feels strange that I breezed through parts 1-4, went with parts 3-7 more slowly, and now when the journey is almost over I just somehow don't feel like it now.

I just remembered it because the last chapter is pretty much about the same thing we are discussing.

 

[Menckenstein]

 

[Mastermind]

The whole fucking reason this instead of every game out there with sexy female outfits become the focus of very loud argument is the fucking NUN clothes for fuck's sake.

Wrong on both counts dipshit. The feminists DO complain about every game out there with sexy female outfits. And the main issue here isn't the nun clothes (though they add to it), it's that the big bad man is slaughtering a bunch of oversexualized women. Rape imagery, male dominance, objectification of women, sexual repression. The same shit the Borderhouse and countless over-privileged liberals have been crying about since time immemorial.

 

[Phelot]

I wish we didn't have articles about this and I wish games weren't "serious." I know that gamers have danced around these issues in the past. I recall when Postal first came out and PC Gamer had this debate between two of its reviewers about it. Regardless, there didn't seem to be this in depth discussion on it since it was just sort of a past time. People just played games and understood that games didn't reflect real life regardless of its subject matter. It's just an escape.

Now, I think devs/pubs are to blame as well as gamers since more and more they've been pushing for "mature" themes and trying hard to make their games some kind of social commentary. Again, not that social commentary is new in video games, but it used to be fun and not all serious.

As for this trailer, well, whatever. Honestly, I can't really figure out what's going on or why all these women are dressed up as nun themed hookers or why this bald white man is still grimacing. Maybe it just wants to be absurd for the sake of it and that's cool, I think. Maybe the devs thought "Hey, would it be cool to have this terrorist group of nuns that are like ninjas and stuff?" but then there ya go, we get people questioning the ethics of it.

I think someone should make games for every walk of life. I'd like a game in which you play as a huge bull dyke lesbian that kills men or a game where there is nothing but gay men and women gamers are told to just go fuck themselves, because they asses ain't in this one at all. That way everyone could be happy. Hell, they could even make games starring a modestly dressed, somewhat overweight woman that has to save her dimwitted, but hunky boyfriend from some terrorists.

 

[Menckenstein]

I want to play a game as a pansexual person of color with a BMI in the morbidly obese range who has to solve crimes and zips around town on a hoverround.

 

[Transgressive Grenadier]

Too many stupid motherfuckers like the author quoted in the OP afraid of their own penises and vaginas. Fuck off of my planet and asphyxiate somewhere cold and lonely where your stupidity can't reach us.

We are sexual and violent creatures, we like sex, we like violence, we are drawn to it (unless defective, that's another issue) and those who are upset about the sexualization of imaginary characters in a violent entertainment product are the most nit-picky whiny pieces of lowlife shit on the planet. Go feed the fucking homeless.

This is what I tell my kids when they want to be storyfags at bedtime.

Cock or Fist, you can only choose one.

C&C

 

[Transgressive Grenadier]

Maybe later, when they're old enough, I'll let them know there is a third kingcomrade option.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I want to play a game as a pansexual person of color with a BMI in the morbidly obese range who has to solve crimes and zips around town on a hoverround.

Saints Row 2

 

[GarfunkeL]

Also Saints Row 3. What great games.

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak

Yes, it is a gross oversimplification. Yes, I know that it is impossible to determine objectively anything without empirical evidence to support it (it was your point to begin with). But then again how can you objectively prove that storing things in a box is useful? Maybe someone doesn't want to store items - his subjective decision - how you will prove that to him? Ok, but does this mean I should just stand here and take no action when we feel something went totally "wrong" or could be done “better”.

My point wasn't that you shouldn't do this or that. My point was that you saying "they are wrong" is as valid as them saying you are. The main thing I have been discussing is you saying they were objectively wrong.

That and asking a question which is interesting to me: Subjective reality is a delusion that doesn't exist outside of your mind, and as your mind created or formed the delusion it can alter it. What's the point, then, in not changing the form and nature of that delusion to the one that would bring more joy, fun, and pleasure instead of one that makes you grumpy and sad?

In other words,

1. There's an object here.
2. You give this object a subjective value.
3. That subjective value makes you unhappy.

Why not seek to change the subjective value you are giving the object, or the way your personal delusion interpretates the object, to find things happier and more fulfilling instead of being like the old guy in a peremnial bad mood?

Say, your objective is pleasure. Videogames are a tool to that objective. Thus...

1. You can wait for them to make the games you find enjoyable and lack the pleasure videogames could give you until then.
2. You can change the subjective "prism" through which you observe reality so that the games they make give you pleasure.

Aha. So it all boils down to:

1). If reality doesn't suit you, start changing the reality so that you can obtain the desired results.
2). If reality doesn't suit you, change yourself (i.e. your perspective, opinion) in order to appreciate what reality has to offer.

You may find point 1 odd here - your own counterpart implies inaction and idleness - perpetual bitterness over something that cannot be achieved. This is not the case with discussing subjective opinions with fellow and unfellow madmen. The commotion resulting from our squabbling is enough for ideas to develop and use in own projects. The sheer fact that we put labels or something makes us amass new knowledge which can be used at later date. That something does happen spurrs the wheels of change.

So I wonder, why 1 instead of 2? I seriously can't understand the posture, and even less when we can argue the delusion in 1. was imposed on you by previous experiences and context while 2. is actually your own will becoming manifest.

Point 1) was imposed on me by my previous experiences that made me myself - they shaped who I am and what I came to apprecieate in life. They gave me knowledge about how to deal with the problems I will encounter. How is that not my own will? What is my own will, then? Is your will only everything that brings you happiness?

Point 2) is strange one as well. How does your own will become manifest in point 2)? I guess, because it was my own decision to change it, or am I getting it wrong? So in adverse conditions, when I do not like limitations imposed on me, I can change myself to look into what actually is offered to me. When I adjust my will to the world does it not mean that I simply accept the limits and "love the Big Brother"? That is my own will, or is it someone else's?

Mind you I do not completely disagree with point 2). Actually, I'd argue that our squabbling here with madman is the way to see if they actually have a point. Otherwise how do you know about any alternatives? How can you get rid yourself of your prejudice and frustration, if not by realising that they are also people that can be reasoned with, or can have a couple of interesting ideas of their own? I like that very much.

Now subjectively I *know* ending up plastered all over the floor is wrong, and I am not interested in anything else beyond that. I also understand that because for me staying in one piece is subjectively critical, I can suspect, that should I encounter you, you will be equally interested in staying in one piece. I may be wrong - you may prove to be a peculiar kind of suicidal alien - but this is the extent of the subjective knowledge I posses and I will use it to the full capacity. Of course, I could just make sure you don't want to chainsawed just by asking. If you insisted that slicing me into those 17 chunky pieces is the best course of action and yet wouldn't want to be sliced yourself, because it would end your life, which for you would be as personally (subjectively) important as mine own to me, then one could argue that based on the facts we know about one another, there is a mismatch here. This kind of mismatch was called "wrong"/"unfair" because we - whether there are just two of us, whole groups, societies, nations - agreed that this is what those words mean in this context - based on what we share in common. The fact is: there’s a mismatch, ergo something is wrong. This is where objectivity is born.

I already posted the definition of objective in this context, so I am not going there again.

Now, you all agree to give this thing a value that has no existence outside of you and create a consensual delusion. There's nothing objective on that, only a shared subjectivity. If objectivity would be consensual, it would not be -objective-. The moment you interpretate something, the moment you give anything a value, the relationship between you and it stoped being objective.

I cannot agree with that simply because without any form of consensus there's no framework for objectivity to exists. You cannot make a single statement without any form of consensus creeping in. Even the world of mathematics - which is all about objectivity and accurate description of reality is full of constructs that work only because we agreed upon that. Without such frameworks the sentence:

This is a dog

is totally meaningless. What is a dog? A four legged mammal that barks (we agreed upon that). How much/many of the dog there is? There is a dog (not two killogrames not 70 metres, not 3). Let's not limit ourselves to adjectives, when we discuss objectivity/subjectivity in semantics, shall we?

Of course you mean here that objects and their characteristics can exists without anyone perceiving them - outside of any human framework. In that sense objectivity is quite useless to me, because for me to accomplish any action or even think anything I need detailed information, which will be always subjective, in that case.

So, because their opinion is as valid as mine own - it exists in their own head, after all - making any judgments upon learning it is pointless? But this alone won’t stop me from making the judgment on account of my subjectivity - it sort of happens, just like it happens when seeing an attractive guy/girl. It is a natural reaction which can tell me a great deal about you.

I did not say that. I said there is no objective value in there. Go ahead and give it all the subjective value you want.

However, what's the point on a delusional madman passing judgement on other delusional madman? It does sound kind of pointless. *shrug*

Only if you take no pleasure from what other madmen have to say or how it can raise your understanding about them - and understanding others is just worth it. True, it can be infuriating at times, but such is life.

In other words identifying a certain thing as ilusory doesn't impede you from enjoying that thing, yet it makes kind of foolish to actually fight over it or suffer about it. If the fighting over it causes you pleasure, go ahead. But if it makes you grumpy or sad, what's the point?

This is something I very much agree with. The moment you change your approach from "Jesus fucking Christ - what did those idiots say, again?" to "ok, that is completely wrong. Let's try to reason with those guys." you win. If this is what you mean by "changing the subjective prism" then yes, you are right.

I will only add that even those illusory concepts affect the reality and change objective facts about it. I mean look at something so simple as marketing - which is created to influence subjective opinions of individuals with illusions to generate extra revenue in the process. If one decided to willingly accept everything marketing throws at you... well... where does your will start and their begin? IMO, staying true to core values and altering reality in their defence is crucial. And objectivity is overrated. :/

You are grumpy or sad over something that -doesn't exists-.

No worries. I think we all are past that phase.

I actually reinstalled the whole thing a week ago but haven’t touched it since.It feels strange that I breezed through parts 1-4, went with parts 3-7 more slowly, and now when the journey is almost over I just somehow don't feel like it now.

I just remembered it because the last chapter is pretty much about the same thing we are discussing.

Ok, I will look into it over the weekend.

 

[Gragt]

I'm surprised no one has already burned the serie Gabriel Knight serie to the stake for its portrayal of relationships between man and woman.

 

[Sceptic]

I'm surprised no one has already burned the serie Gabriel Knight serie to the stake for its portrayal of relationships between man and woman.

They'd have to have plated it first. And the last game is what, 13 years old? that's like the paleolithic.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I never played those, elaborate.