|
8751 Posts
So here's what happens: You get angry about something and the anger serves no good purpose at all. You can handle it three ways: catharsis, ignore it, or work through it. Catharsis: flush out the anger in a harmless way and move on. Ignore it: this is impossible to do. Ignoring it causes repression. Even though your actions may ignore the anger, it still lingers in your mind for a while and affects your thinking. Work through it: you calm yourself down without thinking about the trigger of your anger, and once you're calm you think about the trigger and realize that anger wasn't a good response. Next time, you recognize the trigger and feel less anger. Eventually, you feel no anger. Of course there are limits to this but in the case of SC-related rage and forum-related rage, I believe most people could get rid of their rage with a proper effort.
If I act out my anger, then yeah it gets out of my system for that incident, but there's nothing stopping it from happening again. And when I do that, it's more likely that I'll need/want to act out my anger the next time, and even more the next time, etc, until it becomes habitual, because it feels good to get the anger out.
If I resolve the anger by thinking like "This emotion isn't useful for me. Anger accomplishes nothing here. My impulse is incorrect and I need to adjust it" then every time I get that trigger, I feel less and less anger, until I feel nothing at all.
I think catharsis is ok in combination with a plan to prevent anger in the future. Catharsis by itself will increase the frequency of your anger and increase your need to act it out. If you hate getting angry or catharsis is getting too inconvenient, then you should really be doing something else. If you get angry in a situation where no catharsis is possible (business meeting, in the middle of a sc game, etc) then you have really fucked yourself over. Anger turns into real rage (not this fake rage that plagues gaming lingo) and you can't do anything close to your best.
|
So... basically this is heading towards a philosophical debate. It can't become a philosophical debate. Its only a "philosophical debate" if you don't have enough detail, fact, and supporting evidence to support your position. So if I were to engage you in a "philosophical debate" that would mean I'd have to ignore the fact that I've backed up my argument while the other side simply throws around buzzwords like "censorship" and other things pick up from cable television or their philosophy 101.
I keep putting "philosophical debate" in quotes because I have a large respect for philosophy but it really gets disrespected on internet forums through gross misuse. It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
|
AGE's old "stuff"... Before the time people measured APM:
I smashed several mouses back in the day when i was competetive...
The only real answers to stupid losses are:
1: Analyse your game --> do better.
2: Rage --> Play in a rage frenzy until you come over that fucking thing that kills you all the time (takes "ages" and was my way).
3: Stop because you realise it does not do you good.
After some time I stopped. Made my life better, let me keep my job, made me "better for society" (rofl)...
I saw others that were "pretty" good... they did not succeed in their studies due to playing to much (i went to work, watched my clanmates record in WC3... 40-60 games more in one day, WTF? Oh, he was #1 in the 1on1 Northend ladder AND #1 in the 2on2 ladder, i don't remember if at the same time, but he had both once... My best was #8X when the "work/rage" would have overtaken and i stopped/got down a little).
I had some crazy record when WC3 Classic was fresh.. Like 40-3... The above mentioned clanmate like 90-5 (ladder games)... Good Times.. I did not need practise, just "feeling how you should play that game" was enough.
There was a time when 200-400 people would download replays of me.. Because i was kinda "ahead of the crowd".. Because the "crowd" consists of retards (right now i would say, thats everyone thats not at least in master league).
In effect this means:
1 "Think" and try to go pro (which means playing it, PLAYING, as much as others "work" a day per day)
2 Die trying (because you are lazy and just better because you "got" the game faster than others).
3 "Thinkt" and Live a normal live (i hope you didn't trash it because of some videogame allready)
it's the same with anger but a little harder:
1 Go pro/really competetive --> Get over your anger and learn to learn from losses or die trying to play over your rage.
2 Stop and live a "normal" live.
it's simple.
I still sometimes feel "the spark" when a new game comes out and i'm doing way above average. When a game is "new" and strategies (and the people that copy them) are not refined everything is easy for me.... BUT i never again will have the time and more importantly the WILL/FUN to grind 4-5 hours "playing" a day just to beat some fucking morons that can't figure out a thing by themselves.... (how i hate you, yes you, you - replays!).
No matter how smart you think you are... Practise/memorisation/speed/TIME SPENT will beat your "understanding", "feeeeeel", or "knowledge" sooner or later...(with every new generation/game sooner)
------------------
If you never stood on that "edge" between... "above average" and "really good" (which back in the day would mean "pro", because there were no pro's in "the west") you probably won't understand this.
Btw:
When i play WC3 (or especially SC/BW due to the extreme mechanics required) i feel terrible because i "know/feel" how slow and B A D i have become... I hate the feeling playing them.. I feel like a guy that knew how to walk that needs to learn it again....
Ok, i'm drunk... But i think, thats "pretty" true.
Invest all your time or fail. Just realise how much you want to commit before it's to late. Am i happy now? "Semi" would i be happier if i went all the way? I doubt it, there are and were several more talented, more intelligent and more committed players at all times so to persue my "dream" (it never really was) would have been stupid...
Back in the day i could beat some of the guys that spent way more time, had more talent due to being "smarter", some due to being more "experienced" or being faster (well, in my case this rarely happened  )... But in the end? The guy that "got it" and had more games played would be better....
You can win against BO, you can win against APM... You can't win against superior knolwedge/practise/mechnics which you only get when you invest time... TONS of time.
EDIT:
and before anyone "thinks" i deem(ed) myself TRUELY good at SC/BW or WC3... No.. Not at all.. I was just ahead of the curve because i tend to understand how a game "should be played".... WC3 was about Heroes, people did not understand this back then, most people were retards... Dreadlord first with Sleep owned ALL the retards (after they figured that out DK/Lich did just fine for some time, I stopped playing as "mass casters" totally dominated every game)...
|
On June 08 2011 05:38 Kiarip wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2011 05:22 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:39 Kiarip wrote:On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it. It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC." "We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same." According to you this would be a good argument. lol i see you read my post http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=221237 here, as you employ these tactics quite well. as far as the rename nukes it was in direct response to something Destiny said on sotg. the context argument was brought up multiple times in this thread. Yeah no, I didn't even know that wall of text existed. I just use common sense. Ok, I skimmed over your topic... so basically you're a troll? edit: since I like to humor trolls here you go:
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
You're using strawman yourself. This argument isn't there to prove that people's feelings aren't getting hurt. It's to prove that there's no malicious intent in using the word rape, because the context makes it obvious that it's being used to describe something completely different what a person that has been sexually assaulted has experienced.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
Yes, that's the main opposition and that's where the slippery slope argument comes in.
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
This isn't a strawman. The slippery slope argument doesn't argue against saying that 'rape' should no longer be used. Slippery slope argues against the validity of the opposition that you stated earlier, because that same argument is applicable to a much more general subset of words than just rape, so unless you agree to stop using all words like "nuke, disaster, tragedy, loss, death, accident, murder, massacre" etc etc. because they can be associated with traumatic experiences you are using selective reasoning, and the "main opposition" argument doesn't in fact hold true, because there are obvious exceptions to it, so you need to come up with a better argument than that. Saying that slippery slope is being used aa strawman, is like if I called you stupid, because you decided to name your TL account gods_basement, and you say: "Well this isn't a logical argument" and then I'm like "OH well that's strawman I'm not arguing that it's a logical argument, I'm just arguing that you're stupid."
you really should read that post i linked earlier, because i wrote it about people like you. the title is called "Argumentation for Oafs" and it deals with how to "win" an argument without the use of intellect, introspection (not that you're an oaf). it just requires a lot of words.
the underlying point in my post was that comparing domination competition to the violent crime of rape is insensitive. I debunked two counterarguments that i felt were inadequate (but they do not prove my point; they are more footnotes than premises). Rape is a poor word not because its associated with pain (as you suggest), but instead because associating the deep trauma with something as trivial as a video game is offensive, insensitive, and immature.
So whether or not my entire post was perfect, the underlying point is still the same, and thats really what you should be addressing.
edit: removed snide jabs
|
On June 08 2011 08:10 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 05:38 Kiarip wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2011 05:22 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:39 Kiarip wrote:On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it. It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC." "We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same." According to you this would be a good argument. lol i see you read my post http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=221237 here, as you employ these tactics quite well. as far as the rename nukes it was in direct response to something Destiny said on sotg. the context argument was brought up multiple times in this thread. Yeah no, I didn't even know that wall of text existed. I just use common sense. Ok, I skimmed over your topic... so basically you're a troll? edit: since I like to humor trolls here you go:
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
You're using strawman yourself. This argument isn't there to prove that people's feelings aren't getting hurt. It's to prove that there's no malicious intent in using the word rape, because the context makes it obvious that it's being used to describe something completely different what a person that has been sexually assaulted has experienced.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
Yes, that's the main opposition and that's where the slippery slope argument comes in.
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
This isn't a strawman. The slippery slope argument doesn't argue against saying that 'rape' should no longer be used. Slippery slope argues against the validity of the opposition that you stated earlier, because that same argument is applicable to a much more general subset of words than just rape, so unless you agree to stop using all words like "nuke, disaster, tragedy, loss, death, accident, murder, massacre" etc etc. because they can be associated with traumatic experiences you are using selective reasoning, and the "main opposition" argument doesn't in fact hold true, because there are obvious exceptions to it, so you need to come up with a better argument than that. Saying that slippery slope is being used aa strawman, is like if I called you stupid, because you decided to name your TL account gods_basement, and you say: "Well this isn't a logical argument" and then I'm like "OH well that's strawman I'm not arguing that it's a logical argument, I'm just arguing that you're stupid." you really should read that post i linked earlier, because i wrote it about people like you. the title is called "Argumentation for Oafs" and it deals with how to "win" an argument without the use of intellect, introspection (not that you're an oaf). it just requires a lot of words (which you seem to have). the underlying point in my post was that comparing domination competition to the violent crime of rape is insensitive. I debunked two counterarguments that i felt were inadequate (but they do not prove my point; they are more footnotes than premises). Rape is a poor word not because its associated with pain (as you suggest), but instead because associating the deep trauma with something as trivial as a video game is offensive, insensitive, and immature. So whether or not my entire post was perfect, the underlying point is still the same, and thats really what you should be addressing when you're "humoring trolls."
What is wrong with being offense, insensitive and immature? As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't initiating force against others (stealing, threatening, physically attacking, etc. that isn't justified by the person you are doing it against initiating force themselves) and doing what makes you happy it doesn't matter if you are those things.
|
On June 08 2011 08:19 OsoVega wrote:
...
What is wrong with being offense, insensitive and immature? As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't initiating force against others (stealing, threatening, physically attacking, etc. that isn't justified by the person you are doing it against initiating force themselves) and doing what makes you happy it doesn't matter if you are those things.
wait what?
I'ts ok to be rude, immature and insensitive as long as you don't break any laws?
correct me if I'm wrong but thats how I read your comment.... I have to admit, if I felt this way, I wouldn't have many friends... and frankly I wouldn't tolerate any friend that thuoght it was ok to throw a trantrum or be a jerk...
don't get me wrong, I'm sometimes a horrible jerk in sc2 and in real life...
but I've never thought it was ok...
|
On June 08 2011 08:28 Galleon.frigate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 08:19 OsoVega wrote:
...
What is wrong with being offense, insensitive and immature? As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't initiating force against others (stealing, threatening, physically attacking, etc. that isn't justified by the person you are doing it against initiating force themselves) and doing what makes you happy it doesn't matter if you are those things. wait what? I'ts ok to be rude, immature and insensitive as long as you don't break any laws? correct me if I'm wrong but thats how I read your comment.... I have to admit, if I felt this way, I wouldn't have many friends... and frankly I wouldn't tolerate any friend that thuoght it was ok to throw a trantrum or be a jerk... don't get me wrong, I'm sometimes a horrible jerk in sc2 and in real life... but I've never thought it was ok...
No, my comment has nothing to do with the law. I'm saying it's ok to be rude, immature and insensitive as long as you don't initiate force against anyone and that is what makes you happy. I define the initiation of force as the initiation of physical force against another's will as well as indirect initiations of force such as threats, fraud, etc. My examples just happened to include things that are against the law. It seems that being those things wouldn't make you happy because friends make you happy and you think those things would drive off your friends. Therefore, you don't think it is OK to do those things because they don't make you happy. You do them anyway because you sometimes allow emotion to decide your actions rather than reason.
My opinion is based on this philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
|
On June 08 2011 08:10 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 05:38 Kiarip wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2011 05:22 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:39 Kiarip wrote:On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it. It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC." "We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same." According to you this would be a good argument. lol i see you read my post http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=221237 here, as you employ these tactics quite well. as far as the rename nukes it was in direct response to something Destiny said on sotg. the context argument was brought up multiple times in this thread. Yeah no, I didn't even know that wall of text existed. I just use common sense. Ok, I skimmed over your topic... so basically you're a troll? edit: since I like to humor trolls here you go:
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
You're using strawman yourself. This argument isn't there to prove that people's feelings aren't getting hurt. It's to prove that there's no malicious intent in using the word rape, because the context makes it obvious that it's being used to describe something completely different what a person that has been sexually assaulted has experienced.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
Yes, that's the main opposition and that's where the slippery slope argument comes in.
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
This isn't a strawman. The slippery slope argument doesn't argue against saying that 'rape' should no longer be used. Slippery slope argues against the validity of the opposition that you stated earlier, because that same argument is applicable to a much more general subset of words than just rape, so unless you agree to stop using all words like "nuke, disaster, tragedy, loss, death, accident, murder, massacre" etc etc. because they can be associated with traumatic experiences you are using selective reasoning, and the "main opposition" argument doesn't in fact hold true, because there are obvious exceptions to it, so you need to come up with a better argument than that. Saying that slippery slope is being used aa strawman, is like if I called you stupid, because you decided to name your TL account gods_basement, and you say: "Well this isn't a logical argument" and then I'm like "OH well that's strawman I'm not arguing that it's a logical argument, I'm just arguing that you're stupid." you really should read that post i linked earlier, because i wrote it about people like you. the title is called "Argumentation for Oafs" and it deals with how to "win" an argument without the use of intellect, introspection (not that you're an oaf). it just requires a lot of words. the underlying point in my post was that comparing domination competition to the violent crime of rape is insensitive. I debunked two counterarguments that i felt were inadequate (but they do not prove my point; they are more footnotes than premises). Rape is a poor word not because its associated with pain (as you suggest), but instead because associating the deep trauma with something as trivial as a video game is offensive, insensitive, and immature. So whether or not my entire post was perfect, the underlying point is still the same, and thats really what you should be addressing. edit: removed snide jabs
So basically everything you've written just boils down to "try to be more sensitive," or "it's insensitive to say this thing."
Which I partially agree with, but it's a philosophical topic imo. I like to focus on intention, because because at some point anyone can have their feelings hurt by anything that is said even if it's not intended to be hurtful to anyone. The reason I feel like it's ok to use 'rape' is because you don't mean any harm. Similarly how i can call my black friends 'niggas' if I want to because they know I'm not trying to be racist or hateful.
Maybe psychological trauma is a different issue, but nowadays anything and everything is medically considered to be a psychological trauma. This is the way I personally communicate from standpoint of myself being me. I am actually for teamliquid and E-sports in general adapting a more professional vocabulary, because it will help with its acceptance. I do think that political correctness is really dumb, but SC2 is probably not the best soap box from which to try to change the world in this regard.
|
|
|
On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.)
LOL I hope your not serious in calling gamers who use the word "rape" rapists.
I don't use the word rape myself, but a thought occured to me, isn't killing worse than rape(according to our legal system it is)? And how much more often to we use "killed" casually in games and such?EDIT: Sorry, I guess that has already been discussed. I'll just throw in my two cents and say that the word "rape" shouldn't be used and is a sign of immaturity but also that it really isn't the worst thing in world.
|
On June 08 2011 11:39 Shelke14 wrote:
Question: SOTG tonight?
I don't think so.
Did they have one on sunday? I was trying to look back a few pages but all I am seeing are comments on anger and rape
|
On June 08 2011 11:45 happyness wrote:I don't think so. Did they have one on sunday? I was trying to look back a few pages but all I am seeing are comments on anger and rape
You two must have missed the last episode. Incontrol left and SOTG is on hold for now. JP said it will definitely be back but he doesn't know when.
|
On June 08 2011 11:45 happyness wrote:I don't think so. Did they have one on sunday? I was trying to look back a few pages but all I am seeing are comments on anger and rape
SOTG on hiatus...JP moving
|
 Well, if they aren't doing SotG, JP, Day9, Incontrol, and Tyler ought to get together and do a show about the MLG. I'd very much like to hear what they thought about the results of MLG, Korea vs Foreigners, Idra, PvZ, and the growth of esports.
|
|
|
On June 08 2011 06:38 fantomex wrote:Show nested quote +I already asked you for a link to a scientifically relevant article that covers this issue of trigger words. If it would relate to rape victims it would be even better. I've been trying to search the issue, but all I get are links to user interface engineering and various other non-related topics. Read the link I already posted and you will find literally more information on the subject then you will be able to absorb. You don't know what "censorship" means. Feel free to talk how ever you want on whatever platform will let you. Twitter/blog/streaming. Its not Teamliquids job to promote your stream or allow you to use the forum. Quite the opposite: Teamliquid may consider its job to promote streams that reflect positively on the community and maintain a forum that isn't full of retards.
Since supposedly you've already read and understand the information in the presented link (and this "trigger word" mechanic is the basis of your argument), it would have been very good manner, and in a constructive manner it would show that you're not talking out of your ass (which you obviously are) if you'd really give a specific scientifically relevant link, not just directing me toward a HUGE wall of text that is hard to navigate as is and which may or maynot have what I am looking for.
Edit:
cen·sor·ship /ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/ [sen-ser-ship]
–noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
cen·sor /ˈsɛnsər/ [sen-ser]
–noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
There you go buddy. So you're procensorship because you think people should surpess (themselves or TL should do it in their stead) parts of their posts/streams that you deem to be objectionable on moral or other grounds.
|
Does anyone know when JP will load the VOD for tonight's show?
|
On June 08 2011 16:41 Chriscras wrote:
Does anyone know when JP will load the VOD for tonight's show?
Did you not read this page? No show this week, so never.
|
On June 08 2011 16:41 Chriscras wrote:
Does anyone know when JP will load the VOD for tonight's show?
If you watched last weeks SHOW then you would understand that JP SAID that there is no show for at least this week. And if you didn't watch last week's show then why the fuck do you care about this weeks'.
some people...
|
Since supposedly you've already read and understand the information in the presented link (and this "trigger word" mechanic is the basis of your argument), it would have been very good manner, and in a constructive manner it would show that you're not talking out of your ass (which you obviously are) if you'd really give a specific scientifically relevant link, not just directing me toward a HUGE wall of text that is hard to navigate as is and which may or maynot have what I am looking for.
Hahahahaha. I love people like you on forums. Ignore the link I post. Ask for a link proving what I say, then say "TL;DR" when I give it to you again. Hahahahahhaha. Hey, you can't be proven wrong if you're illiterate!!! lmao.
What is sad is that probably works for you 90% of the time on this forum, because most people are too lazy to actually find the links.
hahahahahahah
Keep posting links to the dictionary though thats really working!!
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
