Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Democratic Party Going Forward
[attachment=4362]
Reply
In all but one of the debates, Biden's speech has often been choppy, incomplete, and rambling. He seems bothered by the lights and noise - more so than the other candidates.

As farsight said, I'd vote for him over Pumpkins but it wouldn't be happily. I am, frankly, worried about his energy levels and state of mind.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
I'd prescribe a cocktail of Adderall, Sudafed, and vitamin B12. Gotta keep up with the opposition.
Reply
Because I take self care a lot more seriously than I did in say, 2012, I haven't been watching the debates, and was therefore unaware that Biden trotted out a Reagan-era racist myth about black parents not caring about their kids' educations in order to blame black people for inequalities in scholastic performance at a debate in September.

The New York Times tried to give Biden room to wiggle out, only for Biden to double down on it, in an article published today. Huffington Post has non-paywall coverage. I look forward to hearing how he's still the only electable candidate and I should be ashamed for failing to love him.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e221...e44b980327
Please consider lending a hand if you can, or posting my gofundme link elsewhere in Social Media Land.

http://citizens.trouble.city/showthread.php?tid=162311&pid=4721386#pid4721386
Reply
(01-17-2020, 09:46 PM)MichaelM Wrote: Biden's speech has often been choppy, incomplete, and rambling. He seems bothered by the lights and noise...

To be fair, this is me on a conference call.
Reply
(01-17-2020, 05:32 PM)farsight. Wrote: Since it appears it has to be said again: I'm not equalizing Biden and Trump


(01-17-2020, 05:32 PM)farsight Wrote: Even worse than how he's ramping up the lying to near-Trump levels is how he's caught Trump in the world-salad category. 


Biden is far from the best choice for nominee.  But it is vital to remember that for all his deficiencies, he is not the enemy.  The enemy is very real, and its hold on power rests on convincing people that it is only a slightly worse version of what the other side is offering.
Reply
(01-18-2020, 12:00 AM)bradito Wrote:
(01-17-2020, 09:46 PM)MichaelM Wrote: Biden's speech has often been choppy, incomplete, and rambling. He seems bothered by the lights and noise...

To be fair, this is me on a conference call.

WE ARE BROTHERS
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
Biden's just such a cynical choice. It's frustrating.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
---

Another excerpt from the interview:

Quote:[Joe Biden]: And you may recall, the criticism I got for meeting with the leaders in Silicon Valley, when I was trying to work out an agreement dealing with them protecting intellectual property for artists in the United States of America. And at one point, one of the little creeps sitting around that table, who was a multi- — close to a billionaire — who told me he was an artist because he was able to come up with games to teach you how to kill people, you know the ——

[Times Opinion writer Charlie Warzel]: Like video games.

[Biden]: Yeah, video games. And I was lectured by one of the senior leaders there that by saying if I insisted on what Leahy’d put together and we were, I thought we were going to fully support, that they would blow up the network, figuratively speaking. Have everybody contact. They get out and go out and contact the switchboard, just blow it up.

And then one of these righteous people said to me that, you know, “We are the economic engine of America. We are the ones.” And fortunately I had done a little homework before I went and I said, you know, I find it fascinating. As I added up the seven outfits, everyone’s there but Microsoft. I said, you have fewer people on your payroll than all the losses that General Motors just faced in the last quarter, of employees. So don’t lecture me about how you’ve created all this employment.

(note: the 'little creeps' he was referring to are believed to be the heads of Apple, Netflix, Facebook, Google, Electronic Arts, Zynga, DreamWorks, and Symantec, with EA likely being the ones he believes are teaching kids how to murder people)

I mean... ugh. If I read that without the name, I'd assume the interview was with a right-wing NRA stooge.

The Times will be publishing this kind of lengthy interview with each major candidate before they announce their endorsement. I'm hopeful that this is the worst one (I assume Gabbard was not invited).
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
I feel like "disrespecting Silicon Valley tech bros" would be seen as a positive, if it were any other candidate doing it.
Reply
(01-18-2020, 12:19 PM)schwartz Wrote: I feel like "disrespecting Silicon Valley tech bros" would be seen as a positive, if it were any other candidate doing it.

Same. And in a good many cases, they'd deserve it.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
Eh, no, any politician peddling the, "Video games are to blame for mass shootings!" bullshit would get the exact same reaction.

Mocking their role in the economy would be a terribly out-of-touch stance from anyone as well. Using GM's layoffs to support the idea that tech is irrelevant is some bizarre logic.

But as I said directly, his quote about video game violence sounds a pathetic Republican talking point, regardless of the source.

I don't dislike this because I dislike Biden; I dislike Biden because he says things like this.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
Except for the 'Video Games cause violence' spiel (something that has been a feature of both parties for some time now), I'm generally on board with Biden calling the tech industry out on its high income/low employment disparity.
Reply
I mean, yeah, the tech industry deserves to be called out on a lot of things. But the video-games-cause-violence talking point? What is this, 1998?
Reply
(01-18-2020, 01:50 PM)commodorejohn Wrote: I mean, yeah, the tech industry deserves to be called out on a lot of things. But the video-games-cause-violence talking point? What is this, 1998?

Well, no, it's not 1998.  But that does mean that the conversation around violent video games is different, in a world where games have advanced to the level where the military actually uses them for training and online gaming circles have become the focal point of far-right radicalization and irl harrassment campaigns.  And SWAT-ing is a thing that has killed people.  And mass shootings are a bimonthly occurrence, often perpetrated by young men radicalized online. I think today's circumstances warrant more serious considerations of video games' relation to actual violence than when said connection was Tipper Gore's feverish fantasy that DOUBLE DRAGON was going to brainwash kids into attacking their teachers with nunchucks.

But I don't want to give Biden much credit for on that score, because he certainly didn't introduce any of that nuance in that particular quote. It's also complicated by the fact that even if video game culture has become dangerous, that idea has become the favorite talking point of the NRA to deflect from the necessity of actual gun control, and so even acknowledging the possibility feels a bit like doing their work for them.
Reply
I mean, I get what you're saying there. But A. for starters, a lot of what you're talking about is cultural issues that have accreted around video games, rather than games themselves (although the descent of the modern military shooter into paranoid jingoistic/racist fever dream fantasy over the course of the 2010s blurs that line more than a bit,) and B. the fact of the matter is that ignorant politicians vilifying something they don't understand to score points/votes with Concerned Parents with an equal lack of understanding is a major part of How We Got Here in the first place.

Because you can trace a direct freakin' line from the big freakouts over shooters and fighting games in the '90s, through the marginalization of "gamers" as a group in the '00s and the adoption of a sort of "outlaw biker" mentality in part of that subculture as a counter-reaction, to the development of a full-fledged sociopathic-troll-nerd culture in the depths of 4chan and reddit in the 2010s. All that remained was for some enterprising organization(s) to take the lesson of 1930s Germany to heart and remember that a whole (sub)culture of alienated, jaded young men can be a very useful thing to have around at times.
Reply
I go back and forth on whether or not gaming just attracts intense people or creates them. Like many things I guess the answer is a little of both. But that's why I think any measuring of this stuff is going to go awry. It's already a self selected group of people who are a little OTT.
I can remember that hot house feeling where the games industry and the games media are "The Man" and they are trying to fuck with you constantly and you've got to be ready and united against whatever bullshit they are trying to pull (even though what they are trying to do is make and talk about games, for you). It's quite mad, but that's what it was like.
Heaven forbit the government or the mainstream media would cast their gaze in that direction. They were more like distant gods most of the time. You hoped they stayed indifferent because they don't understand you and they could crush your people like a bug.

When the Anita Sarkeesian thing broke for the first time in 2012 I was pretty far out of it all, but I recognised the general pattern of the typical angry game pile on. The vibe I got when trying to figure out what the hell was going on was that these were kids who grew up in the old battles and fears ( with guys like Jack Thompson, Joe Liebermann, endless industry and media scandals that probably didn't matter in the scheme of things), but they were too young to really take part. Now, in a period of relative calm where in many real ways gaming had 'made it' and was going mainstream, they were an abandonned remnant who wanted a war of their own.

(this old guy waffle may contribute little to the overall conversation.
I think a bit of side chat is probably good now we've entered the phase where the candidates must tear each other to shreds in ever more desperate moves right before having to pull together and unite the party. Talking about almost anything else is usually better)
Reply
I've always been under the belief that the very nature of gaming attracts certain people who often live on the fringe of society. Narratives where the player-character is powerful, saves the day, gets the girl, etc..which contrasts heavily in the real world where you're picked on or friendless.  Gaming offers people an escape. Hell, it's probably the reason why I was so into gaming and anime (oh man, we can have a whole thread about the fuckedup relation between cute anime girls and neo-nazis and fascists that spring from the medium) so whole Anita Sarkeesian thing, despite the fact that she's pretty self-aware and nuanced to her feminist approach to gaming, felt like an attack. Because now the very thing you tried to run away from is not only coming for your games, it feels like it's infecting everything.
"There's only one question to resolve. I'm scared. I feel a little crazy. I'm not lucid. The assumptions are right. I can feel my fear growing. Now is the time for the answer. Just one question. One question to answer.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
[i]WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?






[/i]


Reply
I think you could say that for a lot of fiction, though. About the biggest difference there is that there's one less step of abstraction between the protagonist in a film or book (a character the audience watches, whose actions are predetermined) versus a game (a character the player directs, who may not even be visible as a separate entity from the player's point of view) - but that hasn't stopped piles and piles of movies, shows, comics, etc. from being thinly-veiled escape fantasies, or made it any more difficult for audiences to specifically self-identify with protagonists whose actions they don't control.
Reply
There's no evidence of a causal link, or any evidence that video games attract a higher percentage of violent criminals than 100 other hobbies.

A lot of creeps like Star Wars. Did Star wars make them creeps? A lot of white supremacists like NASCAR. Did NASCAR make them into white supremacists?

The religious right already waged this war. It was against rock n roll. It was against hip hop. It was against TV showing married couples sleeping in the same bed. It was against a million things that were each easier to blame than accepting reality.

The reality is that X % of human beings are born broken, and another Y % will be broken by growing up in an environment of terrible parenting and terrible people around them. Take away their video games, and they'll still be broken, and will still look to lash out.

The worst thing about Biden's quote above isn't that he's wrong and out of touch. It's that he's parroting a Republican/NRA talking point with complete confidence that it's incontrovertible fact.

Beyond that, he dismisses the entire tech industry (not just gaming) as, "little creeps", when it's obvious to almost everyone that it -is- the future. And to justify that, he tells them, "Hey, GM just fired more people than you employ!", which hardly demonstrates the health of the non-tech economy, and ignores how many outside jobs serve those companies - jobs we largely have ceded to China because old dudes like him were too busy protecting GM and fighting for oil.

The viewpoints expressed in that rant are part of the problems we face today, not solutions.
Gamertag: Tweakee
Reply
^ What he said.
Reply
You do see a lot of fandoms start to resemble that intensity to some degree (although there might be a case to be made that this is as a result of gamers in those fandoms, but hey ho...)
I do tend to think that the difference in gaming itself is that it has that (or developed that) online competitive component along side everything else (and this doesn't have to be literal online multiplayer. It can be online interaction about individual achievement in games). That's all very exciting and immediate in ways other media are not. Back in the day there also wasn't that gradual separation. A 'Gamer' played J-RPGs, MUDS, FPSs and Diablo a lot more often so you'd get the bleed over from all of those scenes into one. All of which, I think, gave gaming its peculiar character and sub culture (as well as the kinds of people who were drawn to it in the first place)
Reply
(01-18-2020, 10:11 PM)muzman Wrote: You do see a lot of fandoms start to resemble that intensity to some degree (although there might be a case to be made that this is as a result of gamers in those fandoms, but hey ho...)
I think it's much more that pretty much all fandoms today are shaped by a common set of factors - they communicate (if not exist) primarily via the Internet, usually through domain-specific channels (dedicated fora or Twitter/thinkoblog/etc. communities,) which tends to create an echo-chamber effect; they generally assume the use of pseudonyms over IRL identities, which tends to insulate people from the potential negative repercussions of aggressive or strongly-opinionated language; they typically have some degree of tribal pride in a shared identity/"freak flag," which tends to make folks circle the wagons any time problems within a community come under scrutiny from people outside it, etc. etc.

All of which are pretty understandable in themselves, but do absolutely run the risk of giving rise to toxic community environments and fucked-up emergent behaviors, because human nature is why we can't have nice things. But it's instructive, I think, to look at how parallel problems have developed in other online fandoms in recent years. I recall somewhere in the Trumpocalypse thread a year or two back there was some discussion of neo-Nazi currents circling within the furry fandom, and that pretty much crystalized it for me.

Because that's a perfect example of another group (one with meaningful overlap with the gaming world, I grant you, but fundamentally unrelated) that is centered around something that "normal" society finds weird, distasteful, or outright deviant, and which takes a comparable (if not greater) amount of pride in their status as social outcasts because of it. The key isn't what people are into that normies find weird and gross - it's that normies find it weird and gross, so the resulting alienation of the group from normal society becomes another point around which the community can rally. And, again, as we keep failing to learn, large groups of alienated outcasts? Pretty ripe pickings for people looking to start something.
Reply
The NYT has endorsed Warren and  Klobuchar for president:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/121...0bc16bdd64
Not so much tooth!
Reply
(01-20-2020, 01:27 PM)gatorboy Wrote: https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/121...0bc16bdd64

That's a great burn.  Kudos, Dan.
Reply
Why bother with an endorsement if you can't make a fucking decision about the central question of the entire 2020 Democratic nominating-process (centrism or progressivism)? Pathetic.

You’ve got to wonder if the split had to do with the Bernie-bullshit she started. Basically, they were ready to endorse Warren, then she clearly threw away her chances by blowing Bernie up needlessly, and one faction of the Times was basically like, "Fuck No" to Warren, so they agreed to split.

Needless to say, the Times is more concerned about the majority....the majority of its subscribers in half-a-dozen neighborhoods in NYC, than it is about what would work in the actual election. If they'd said, "Biden isn't exciting but he can restore normalcy," 10,000 people would have canceled their papers this morning; people who live in rent-controlled, all-white apartment buildings in Williamsburg and think they're "socialists."
"These guys are pros, Michael. They're gonna push the tension 'till the last possible moment before they strip."

 
Reply
I’m not sure where you go in Williamsburg to find apartments that are either rent controlled or all white.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
(01-20-2020, 05:27 PM)leto ii Wrote: Why bother with an endorsement if you can't make a fucking decision about the central question of the entire 2020 Democratic nominating-process (centrism or progressivism)? Pathetic.

You’ve got to wonder if the split had to do with the Bernie-bullshit she started. Basically, they were ready to endorse Warren, then she clearly threw away her chances by blowing Bernie up needlessly, and one faction of the Times was basically like, "Fuck No" to Warren, so they agreed to split.

Needless to say, the Times is more concerned about the majority....the majority of its subscribers in half-a-dozen neighborhoods in NYC, than it is about what would work in the actual election. If they'd said, "Biden isn't exciting but he can restore normalcy," 10,000 people would have canceled their papers this morning; people who live in rent-controlled, all-white apartment buildings in Williamsburg and think they're "socialists."

Eh, if that was the case, it might've been a Warren/Sanders joint endorsement versus a Warren/Klobuchar endorsement. More likely part of the editorial board felt that Warren was too radical.
Reply
[attachment=4372]
Reply
Wow, dank meme.
Reply
You say that like elections aren't won on the backs of dank memes
Reply
So Amos, hypothetically, if someone other than Bernie were to get the nomination, would you vote for them?
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
Yeah, but I’m just some guy in Oregon. It doesn’t really matter who I vote for. I can’t speak for other Bernie supporters. Is it possible they won’t be so flexible? Absolutely. That’s why it’s imperative Bernie is the nominee.
Reply
I've never been a huge fan of Warren, but she was saying things last year that made me come around a bit. I'm back to thinking she kind of sucks, but I'd still vote for her at the drop of a hat.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)