• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News Drama Clickbait Commies, ADL, and supported by EA, teaming up for another "Gamers are Dead" scenario

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,299
9,040
1,365
muh "both sides"

Just because you hate one side it doesn't mean you should back their opposition even as a convenience. As a matter of historical fact that line of thinking is what allowed the Nazi's to come to power in 1933.

In some fights there is no "right side", and even choosing "the lesser of two evils" can be a catastrophic mistake.


When you trot out glib comebacks like "both sides" you just show me you that you haven't thought this through, its just reactionary idiocy.


One side is advocating for trying to force certain ideologies out of certain hobbies because the enthusiasts of those hobbies aren't 100% on board with progressive agendas. They are claiming that white supermacists and nazis are all over gaming, without any evidence to back that up other than pointing to some groyper profile pics, and they are demanding all gamers and content creators abide by their standards or else they are considered implicit vectors for nazi ideology.

It doesn't matter what high-falutin values "your side" stands for if they are acting in a socially damaging way. That's the whole point of opposing the SJW's isn't it? I don't see too many people actively calling for gays, blacks, etc. to be removed from gaming because it'd be overtly bigoted.
However many of us have a problem with the oppressive tactics the SJW-types use in service of their agenda.

In simple terms its their method, not their morality that is the real issue.

AND THAT PROBLEM IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ANY POLITICAL WING OR CAUSE.

In this case. fearmongering using some fringe German group as a bogeyman in order to bolster the "free the internet" is not an approach I'm willimng to support or sanction, even if I do think pushback against the woke brigade is warranted.

The 'other side' is saying "That's stupid, and you're stupid for thinking that."

If you truly believe these are one in the same, then you are not mentally capable of grasping this topic and should spare yourself from further embarrassment.

And in essence what you are saying is "if you aren't with us, you are against us".

Which is stupid, and I'm happy to oppose stupid any day of the week and twice on Sundays,

The issue is not even the website itself, its the fact that the website is being supported by EA, the ADL, and many gaming sites. They are all openly telling you that they are 100% onboard with this website's dogma. This is yet another case of progressives both inside and outside the gaming industry proclaiming that gamers are dead, and instead of standing against this gross misrepresentation you wish to bitch and moan about the people who do stand against it.

Yes, and I'm proud to do it for the reason's I've just outlined.

Meanwhile you are just another reactionary running his mouth apparently oblivious to the fact that he's endorsing strategies he supposedly opposes. Good job sport.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

B-universe

Banned
Mar 23, 2020
1,511
3,317
480
Just because you hate one side it doesn't mean you should back their opposition even as a convenience. As a matter of historical fact that line of thinking is what allowed the Nazi's to come to power in 1933.

Setting aside Goodwin's law and historical matters, that's true. It would be more helpful if you could provide examples of someone blindly backing the opposition to Wokism in this thread.

When you trot out glib comebacks like "both sides" you just show me you that you haven't thought this through, its just reactionary idiocy.

There is a logical fallacy called Argument to moderation, or Argumentum ad temperantiam. It exists. It's not an ad hoc invention of anyone around here.

It doesn't matter what high-falutin values "your side" stands for if they are acting in a socially damaging way.

For example?

That's the whole point of opposing the SJW's isn't it? I don't see too many people actively calling for gays, blacks, etc. to be removed from gaming because it'd be overtly bigoted.
However many of us have a problem with the oppressive tactics the SJW-types use in service of their agenda.

In simple terms its their method, not their morality that is the real issue.

AND THAT PROBLEM IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ANY POLITICAL WING OR CAUSE.

I agree, with a few caveats.

In this case. fearmongering using some fringe German group as a bogeyman in order to bolster the "free the internet" is not an approach I'm willimng to support or sanction, even if I do think pushback against the woke brigade is warranted.

When it manages to attract EA's patronage, can you really describe it as a fringe?
 

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
Just because you hate one side it doesn't mean you should back their opposition even as a convenience. As a matter of historical fact that line of thinking is what allowed the Nazi's to come to power in 1933.

In some fights there is no "right side", and even choosing "the lesser of two evils" can be a catastrophic mistake.


When you trot out glib comebacks like "both sides" you just show me you that you haven't thought this through, its just reactionary idiocy.




It doesn't matter what high-falutin values "your side" stands for if they are acting in a socially damaging way. That's the whole point of opposing the SJW's isn't it? I don't see too many people actively calling for gays, blacks, etc. to be removed from gaming because it'd be overtly bigoted.
However many of us have a problem with the oppressive tactics the SJW-types use in service of their agenda.

In simple terms its their method, not their morality that is the real issue.

AND THAT PROBLEM IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ANY POLITICAL WING OR CAUSE.

In this case. fearmongering using some fringe German group as a bogeyman in order to bolster the "free the internet" is not an approach I'm willimng to support or sanction, even if I do think pushback against the woke brigade is warranted.



And in essence what you are saying is "if you aren't with us, you are against us".

Which is stupid, and I'm happy to oppose stupid any day of the week and twice on Sundays,



Yes, and I'm proud to do it for the reason's I've just outlined.

Meanwhile you are just another reactionary running his mouth apparently oblivious to the fact that he's endorsing strategies he supposedly opposes. Good job sport.

I too remember when Hitler gave his first speech as Fuhrer and said "Ich möchte nur Videospiele spielen."

You claim I am using "with me or against me" rhetoric. Of course, this is pure projection on your part.
I am saying that you are acting as if you are against us, something which you've just explicitly confirmed. I am not saying everyone who disagrees with me is an SJW, I am saying your specific qualms sound like concern-trolling.

A real use of "with me or against me" rhetoric is when you assume someone's entire ideological makeup is in conflict with yours based on a single dsiagreement. For example, you claiming that, because people are speaking out against this group, those people all must be ideologues who wish to create boogeymen and fearmonger, despite nobody having done either of those things.

Actually, the mere fact that you believe there to be "sides" to this is indicative of your "with me or against me" mindset. You genuinely believe that everyone who says "that's stupid" to claims that all gamers are nazis are actually radical anti-SJWs, despite that opinion not being indicative of ideological affiliation at all. At most, it shows that the person has disdain for this specific variety of SJW rhetoric.

You claim that mere act of having grievances about this group and its ideology is "socially damaging" and "oppressive" but have no explanation and don't elaborate beyond something about "creating a bogeyman" which isn't what's happening, and isn't even inherent to the airing of grievances. It appears you genuinely refuse to think about this topic at all beyond saying a variation of "both sides".

It is quite strange that would consider backlash against an attempt of actual ideological oppression as being "oppression" in and of itself. Going back to your ridiculous nazi analogy, would that mean that the citizens in occupied territory who fought back were "oppressing" the nazis?

You seem to be chomping at the bit to bitch and moan about all of us "anti-SJWs" opposing this group, but you seem to only state vague oppositions in passing when it comes to addressing the actual topic of discussion, as if you wish to avoid insulting No Pixels for Fascists and its ideals.

Why might that be?
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,299
9,040
1,365
Setting aside Goodwin's law and historical matters, that's true. It would be more helpful if you could provide examples of someone blindly backing the opposition to Wokism in this thread.

First of all its Godwin's Law, and my usage of how Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933 isn't a Godwinism because I'm not saying "x thing is as bad as Hitler". My point was the danger of supporting political causes out of convenience or fear of the alternative. It opens the door for political manipulation tactics, like false flagging.

As to the example you want: this debate is happening because I dared question the existential threat posed by "no pixels for fascists" or whatever. and instead it was being trumped up as a tool for anti-wokism.

There is a logical fallacy called Argument to moderation, or Argumentum ad temperantiam. It exists. It's not an ad hoc invention of anyone around here.

Again, not what I'm arguing. argumentum ad temperantiam would be me arguing that combining the traits of both extreme leftism and right-wimgism would result in a utopia, whereas I'm pointing out that two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the wrong here is in method and process of their political ambitions.

You want precedent: Consider the numerous historical instances of bloody revolution and counter-revolution. In such instances its the common people who suffer the most and for the longest.
 

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
You want precedent: Consider the numerous historical instances of bloody revolution and counter-revolution. In such instances its the common people who suffer the most and for the longest.

"Revolutions against Tyranny is bad" is one hell of a take.
 

B-universe

Banned
Mar 23, 2020
1,511
3,317
480
First of all its Godwin's Law, and my usage of how Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933 isn't a Godwinism because I'm not saying "x thing is as bad as Hitler".

Really?
You said, quote, "that line of thinking is what allowed the Nazi's to come to power".

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Goodwin's Law:

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

I think it's a rather adequate description.

My point was the danger of supporting political causes out of convenience or fear of the alternative. It opens the door for political manipulation tactics, like false flagging.

I wouldn't put it in those absolute terms, but generally speaking, sure.

As to the example you want: this debate is happening because I dared question the existential threat posed by "no pixels for fascists" or whatever. and instead it was being trumped up as a tool for anti-wokism.

Framing it like an existential threat seems a Strawman to me, for I haven't read anything that even remotely approaches that notion. Hence the need to provide examples.

Again, not what I'm arguing. argumentum ad temperantiam would be me arguing that combining the traits of both extreme leftism and right-wimgism would result in a utopia, whereas I'm pointing out that two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the wrong here is in method and process of their political ambitions.

No, that is not what the logical fallacy entails. Argument to Moderation is a logical fallacy, quote, "Asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct. "

It's entirely possible that one of the two allegedly radical positions, Wokism and anti-Wokism, one of them is true in this case. There's no automatic guarantee that middle-ground exists and that it is the truthful position. The extremes cannot be properly dismissed just because they're being deemed extreme. That's not a proper refutation.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,299
9,040
1,365
You were saying "two wrongs don't make a right" and then used revolutions and counterrevolutions as examples.

Yes because most people aren't involved in revolutionary struggle, its activist led.

Which is why they must be scrutinized closely because if given sufficient power and influence they can drag everyone down into hell.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,299
9,040
1,365
So what makes a revolution a "wrong", in your eyes? Is it the number of casualties?

Revolutions generally have huge bodycounts, so if all that is achieved is to exchange one tyrant with another, I'd say its a wrong.

Bottom line is that in most cases the utopias promised by revolutionaries and activists fail to materialize, at best you (the people) end up with is a flawed, imperfect version of what was promised.
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
Revolutions generally have huge bodycounts, so if all that is achieved is to exchange one tyrant with another, I'd say its a wrong.

Bottom line is that in most cases the utopias promised by revolutionaries and activists fail to materialize, at best you (the people) end up with is a flawed, imperfect version of what was promised.

There is no such thing as a utopia. The purpose of revolution isn‘t to create a perfect government, just one that’s better than the previous government.

By that metric I would consider most European and American revolutions to be good. Yes, there were many lives lost, and yes, the new governments (and the people who installed them) often still had many of the flaws of the old government, but if prospects for common man became even slightly better, or the new governement was even slightly less corrupt, than I would count that revolution a good thing.
 
Last edited:

LittleBusters

Banned
Jun 4, 2018
2,422
2,037
465
42
There is no such thing as a utopia. The purpose of revolution isn‘t to create a perfect government, just one that’s better than the previous government.

By that metric I would consider most European and American revolutions to be good. Yes, there were many lives lost, and yes, the new governments (and the people who installed them) often still had many of the flaws of the old government, but if prospects for common man became even slightly better, or the new governement was even slightly less corrupt, than I would count that revolution a good thing.

How many deaths are worth a 'good' revolution?
 

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
How many deaths are worth a 'good' revolution?

How many people live under the government that the revolution is fighting against? How bad is the current government? Obviously there‘s no litmus test that decides whether or a war is good or bad, but I don’t think it’s too taboo to say that there’s quite a few cases, especially with revolution, where one side’s motive is more understandable than the other.

And most revolutions that have so many people die that it’s “not worth it” are bound to fail regardless; I can’t think of a revolution that undergoes a large enough loss of life to the point of defeating the purpose and still end up victorious in the end anyway.
 

Doczu

Member
Aug 17, 2012
3,440
2,238
930
Poland
So this one will start without someone fucking someone else behind someones back, or are we getting to it?

And most importantly - am i on a german watchlist because of what i just typed?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
4,583
7,318
655
How many people live under the government that the revolution is fighting against? How bad is the current government? Obviously there‘s no litmus test that decides whether or a war is good or bad, but I don’t think it’s too taboo to say that there’s quite a few cases, especially with revolution, where one side’s motive is more understandable than the other.

And most revolutions that have so many people die that it’s “not worth it” are bound to fail regardless; I can’t think of a revolution that undergoes a large enough loss of life to the point of defeating the purpose and still end up victorious in the end anyway.

can you list some successful violent revolutions that produced quality governmental structures in the last 200 years? Not trying to start an argument, just curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-universe

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,562
7,606
1,560
Spain
Don’t forget this just happened.


Things like this is what makes you people look like loons. You keep track of what that one billionaire does because "he might be influencing things". Meanwhile tons of other billionaires are doing the same but because they're republican donors and using their money to push the republican agenda none of you bat an eye. The reason you keep losing this fight is because to the outside people looking in you appear to be a bunch of unhinged republicans. And at that point you've lost because a lot of big corporations are not going to publically proclaim support for republicans or for democrats.

Drop all the breitbart talking points and perhaps you have a chance to gain momentum outside your bubble.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
49,957
107,940
1,430
Things like this is what makes you people look like loons. You keep track of what that one billionaire does because "he might be influencing things". Meanwhile tons of other billionaires are doing the same but because they're republican donors and using their money to push the republican agenda none of you bat an eye. The reason you keep losing this fight is because to the outside people looking in you appear to be a bunch of unhinged republicans. And at that point you've lost because a lot of big corporations are not going to publically proclaim support for republicans or for democrats.

Drop all the breitbart talking points and perhaps you have a chance to gain momentum outside your bubble.
 
Last edited:

B-universe

Banned
Mar 23, 2020
1,511
3,317
480
Things like this is what makes you people look like loons. You keep track of what that one billionaire does because "he might be influencing things". Meanwhile tons of other billionaires are doing the same but because they're republican donors and using their money to push the republican agenda none of you bat an eye. The reason you keep losing this fight is because to the outside people looking in you appear to be a bunch of unhinged republicans. And at that point you've lost because a lot of big corporations are not going to publically proclaim support for republicans or for democrats.

Drop all the breitbart talking points and perhaps you have a chance to gain momentum outside your bubble.

A quick reminder that alternatives exist to the Republican / Democrat dichotomy, in particular one that solves most ethical conundrums, including this one.

If Soros wants to invest and steer a studio or publisher towards this or that political harbour, let him. He has every right. His company, his ideology. He's at the helm. That's what it means to own a company. If a Republican investor were to buy DICE wholesale and have it release AAA titles with overt Western religious motifs, so be it. If Naughty Dog wants to turn their flagship IP into a vehicle for Neil's worldview, they're more than welcome, so to speak. It's theirs, for them to reshape as they so desire. If YouTube wants to censor conservatives, they can. it's Google's platform. Conservatives may want to start their own. If Twitter is highly selective as to whom they ban, you can act out on your disgust and move on to another microblogging site. Or quit social media altogether.

So my worldview doesn't incur in any contradiction in this regard and I'm neither a devout Wokist nor a staunch conservative. They have to sort out the contradictions, the strange casuistic that seems to guide the choice of whom they'll criticize and whom they'll exonerate. Truth be told, there's no doubt in my mind that at this particular point in time, Wokeness is by far the most dangerous threat to Western liberal democracies.

There's a few things all of the above companies should know by now, though.

If you turn IPs into political pamphlets, then you will face backlash. The fiercest opponents of said ideology will not stay put and the refactoring will tend to bring out the activist in them. They likely won't buy your products and instead will try to sink them by word-of-mouth. The backlash can be minimal, inconsequential, like TLoU2'swill probably prove to be. But it can also grow with time. Remember, the cultural pendulum swings back and forth. The moment it reaches its highest point is the exact moment it starts receding.
 

Paracelsus

Member
Jun 24, 2007
10,112
2,511
1,510
Things like this is what makes you people look like loons. You keep track of what that one billionaire does because "he might be influencing things". Meanwhile tons of other billionaires are doing the same but because they're republican donors and using their money to push the republican agenda none of you bat an eye.

What is the republican agenda? Tie women in the kitchen next to the ingredients to make a sandwich? Heinous acts against people of color or the lgbt?
Because we know Soros', he's been messing with Italy and Europe for 30 years for example.
What you describe as Republicans exist, and they have a name: Republicans In Name Only.

The reason you keep losing this fight is because to the outside people looking in you appear to be a bunch of unhinged republicans. And at that point you've lost because a lot of big corporations are not going to publically proclaim support for republicans or for democrats.

Globalism is exclusively a capitalist thing, corporations support the path of least resistance and there's nothing easier than pretending you're morally superior through philanthropy.
If they were actually morally superior, you wouldn't have the "China censorship" situation. You impose your will in the west because it's easy.
There's not a better pawn of capitalism than someone believing they're working for the greater good (Disney) while doing the "raised fist".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
can you list some successful violent revolutions that produced quality governmental structures in the last 200 years? Not trying to start an argument, just curious.

Depends on what you mean.

For the 20th century in particular, there were a lot of monarchies that were overthrown by socialist and communist revolutions which then morphed into more stable non-socialist republics and democracies. The governments that were installed by the revolutions were not great, but the current success of these nations likely would not have happened without these revolutions.

Other than those, these were the main ones I found:
The 1830 Belgian Revolution
The Xinhai Revolution (1911)
The Serbian Revolution (1804)

I’m no history buff, so I had to go looking for these, but these should fit the bill.

Not sure why specifically “in the past 200 years”, though.
 

Mildudon

Member
Nov 19, 2012
448
324
685
Reminder that the ADL believes the Triforce is a KKK symbol.


You like Legend of Zelda? Sorry kid, but you’re a KKK member now. You may pick up your complementary hood, tunic, and torch in the dining hall.








You should try reading what you link to. They don`t say the triforce is a KKK. They say the following.
The triangular Klan symbol bears a certain resemblance to the "Triforce" symbol that appears in the popular Legend of Zeldavideo games, with which it should not be confused.
 

Demon2blades

Member
Jun 14, 2017
493
527
395
United Kingdom
You should try reading what you link to. They don`t say the triforce is a KKK. They say the following.
The triangular Klan symbol bears a certain resemblance to the "Triforce" symbol that appears in the popular Legend of Zeldavideo games, with which it should not be confused.

Why even lump the two together on the same sentence in the first place? these sjw types are ridiculous and are ruining all types of media .
 
Last edited:

Mildudon

Member
Nov 19, 2012
448
324
685
Why even lump the two together on the same sentence in the first place? these sjw types are ridiculous and are ruining all types of media .

As to why. Just like an encyclopedia has a detailed explanation of a giving thing and compares it to another similar thing to show contrast/context and to answer any possible question. In short they do look very similar and adressing that and saying that people should not mistake one for the other is just informative. There is nothing wrong wrong with giving people more info/knowledge. And to the last part I would say that is not an objective fact. I would think what you really mean is that it is being ruiner for you.
 

Demon2blades

Member
Jun 14, 2017
493
527
395
United Kingdom
As to why. Just like an encyclopedia has a detailed explanation of a giving thing and compares it to another similar thing to show contrast/context and to answer any possible question. In short they do look very similar and adressing that and saying that people should not mistake one for the other is just informative. There is nothing wrong wrong with giving people more info/knowledge. And to the last part I would say that is not an objective fact. I would think what you really mean is that it is being ruiner for you.

But why would you mistake the tri force for a kkk symbol in the first place I mean at this point there turning people's attention to it .
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
12,544
21,241
755
You should try reading what you link to. They don`t say the triforce is a KKK. They say the following.
The triangular Klan symbol bears a certain resemblance to the "Triforce" symbol that appears in the popular Legend of Zeldavideo games, with which it should not be confused.

Why would they make that connection? Do you think of the KKK when you see the triforce
 

Whitesnake

Banned
Jan 31, 2018
2,203
6,647
650
You should try reading what you link to. They don`t say the triforce is a KKK. They say the following.
The triangular Klan symbol bears a certain resemblance to the "Triforce" symbol that appears in the popular Legend of Zeldavideo games, with which it should not be confused.

It also has a million uses outside of LoZ, I just wanted to make a joke about link's attire.

ETC.

In any case, the ADL is insane, they believe milk, frogs, and okay hands are all racist symbols, so I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

No one on this earth associates the symbol with the KKK.
 
Last edited:

Darkmakaimura

Member
Dec 12, 2008
15,763
7,238
1,625
So fucking Stasi agent is going to dictate something in gaming industry? ARE YOU FUCKING REAL??

She is in there for revenge, not to protect anyone. But fuck sake, this bullshit that looser were bad guys and winners were good ( in WW2 no less ), is fucking PROBLEMATIC (in real sense of word), it makes my head hurt.

I hope someone destroy this bullshit, soon. And I mean soon, not soon™

T R I G G E R E D


They do, but it seems like they cannot stop winning. Everyone's being China's bitch is one example, but even in the west, being commie, is appearantly good thing. FUCK makes my blood boil.

I have some story of "inclusivity", when my family had a big house and they have to "include" other member of working class there and live in the cellar, because it was "left thing to do". This was for 23 years, by the way, that long they were AirBNB, since they weren't in commie party. So fuck that. FUCK EVERYTHING. A fuck those fucking fucker inside my country, which still allows KSCM (Commie party of Czech and Moravia) to be still allowed.

FUCK
I was just on Twitter and saw how many people liked that tweet by China saying the US was responsible. And all the replies by Chinese apologists many of them not Chinese.

I fucking despise commies.

Edit: referring to this.

 
Last edited: