Whats gone wrong with democracy According to this article, democracies are too vulnerable to populism and corruption, while the Chinese model is thriving and increasing the living standard of their country. But thinking outside of the box… who would really trust a government system that converts election of the representatives of a whole country, a matter of popularity and likeability? It wasn’t evident the failure of democracy as a system? Even Greeks considered it an inferior form of government. Just yesterday talking with work mates we were realizing the good piece of engineering that the VW Beetle was. Cars used to be a luxury article. Common people wasn’t expected to have a car. Amongst the good things implemented by Adolf Hitler was the design of the Car of the People, the Volkswagen that later would be known as the Beetle. I’m not a neonazi neither I do condone the subsequent genocide of at least 6 million Jews, Polish, Romani, gays and other people deemed ‘undesirable’ under his command, but my point is, when someone has a vision, and that vision is unobstructed by the popularity contest that Democracy is, things can get done easier and are reflected in increase of the living standard and access to goods otherwise reserved to the upper classes.
Where do we draw the line between those who feel self-entitled enough to yell and dictate and even threaten the creatives behind their favorite IPs for not doing what they feel is ‘the right thing’ and the knowledgeable game critic? Aren’t those both cases of a consumer gone haywire and trying to force the modification of the creation thru fear (in the case of the former) or social / moral pressure (in the case of the latter)?
Tumblr ‘sanitized’ its posts… Entire tags were deleted, as an example the tag #scarlet blade (referring to an infamous adult MMORPG) was deleted in its entirety from Tumblr. What else have been deleted?
I loved this game, but now I realize that its a giant pay-to-win scam… Even if the gameplay had many good points, the monetization system is too greedy and based on rolling and rolling the ‘garapon’ till you get what you want. Gamble-to-win.
Back in high school, whether in English class or Social Studies, usually around one election or another, we learned about “debate,” and one other term: “logical fallacies.” It was a great time, and as we were all young and on the Internet, we started applying them to various topics of discussion, declaring ourselves “winnar!” over our perceived intellectual inferior, as anonymous as they may be. We started to internalize these rules of Internet arguing, and priding ourselves on being “logical,” well reasoned beings. Incorporate this with a media that loves to show angry white men giving long, hateful monologues as they fill rooms and airwaves with blood boiling rhetoric, portrayed by the language of film in a heroic manner, saving the day - and you have a recipe for madness.
From Network to Keith Olbermann to Fox News to Sam Waterson to Jack Nicholson to Mel Gibson to Jean Claude Van Damme to Viggo Mortensen to Clint Eastwood to Charlie Chaplin to General Patton to Al Pacino to Brad Pitt to Gerald Butler to Robin Williams to Sean Connery to Bruce Campbell to Gene Hackman to Bill Pullman, we have been ingrained with an onslaught of angry white men speaking up and heroically speaking “truth.” We learned that these are the heroes, these are the “leading men,” and as white dudes, we learned that we knew to be the truth about the world by following in their footsteps.
Throw in a little Morgan Freeman and Idris Elba, and that picture gets a little less whiter - but it’s still men, highly perched above all, leading and spitting the “truth” about the way the world is.
Tie this in with the rules of debate, which is a competitive practice of “scoring points” by forming the most “logical” arguments, and calling out our opponents “logical fallacies.” The act of debate was never intellectual inquiry or finding out “the facts,” wiping away distortion, or practicing any sort of empathy. It’s preformative intellectualism at it’s finest, and figurative dick waving with zero substance. Thank You For Smoking, a brilliant 2005 film starring Aaron Eckhart, was a brilliant takedown of this bizarre practice, in how the objective was to convince other people, not the person you’re arguing with.
Big ups to the first response in Related Videos being a white dude explaining “How to Win An Argument Everytime.”
Hell, just look at this last Presidential election, where Tumblr had an official team to “.GIF” soundbites out of context, where both sides could “reblog” and share in their supposed intellectual supremacy.
What’s amazing is how the fetishization of “logic” in tech and science communities became mutated through the Internet into a totally bizarre, irrational beast of emotion and again, figurative dick-waving, between mostly men. There’s no self-criticism, no moments of stepping back and questioning one’s own beliefs and just why they might have them or learned them, no real intellectual inquiry.
Yet they wrap themselves in words like “uncomfortable truths,” “reality,” “logic,” “facts,” already assuming that the world exists by the rules they declare, spewing their opinions in a horde of endless, self-righteous crusades, without the courage of empathy, sympathy, listening, or even self-questioning. It’s a purely intellectually dishonest premise to start from, that would make the likes of Plato and Socrates roll in their fucking graves, you fucking embarrassments to scholardom.
It’s simply a defense mechanism to reinforce one’s own bigotry, mainly from getting to benefit from a horribly bigoted and fucked up society simply because they were born male with white skin. Of course, as minorities start to speak up and make their presence known, men so used to the status quo start to get afraid, start losing ground, start getting upset that the status quo they benefit from is being shifted - and turn to attack.
Anita Sarkeesian, creator of Tropes vs. Women and Feminist Frequency, talks in the most patient, reserved, completely palatable tone that doesn’t look down on anyone, in any real regard - is faced with an onslaught of gendered hate and harassment, from death and rape threats to interactive flash games allowing you to physically assault her. People have accused her of being “clever,” supposedly avoiding “valid criticisms,” stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from a public that just won’t listen to “logic,” from mostly white dudes on the Internet who speak primarily in “ragefaces” and slurs.
Yet Anita soldiers on, relentless in her cheerful, rather polite criticism of an artistic medium’s sexist practices - she’s more heroic and “badass” than any actor on a big screen, regardless of what you’ve been taught by the media.
Of course, gender criticism goes both ways, and Tropes vs. Men was a competing project that raised a little over three thousand dollars in funds, which is proudly debating against Ani- no, wait. The creepy, gross men took the money and vanished into the night, with no consequences - not even a single rape threat!
These scoundrels, they never cared about “debate” or “being right,” they quite simply stole from a bunch of creepy males whose brows were so furrowed by their precious artform of videogames being criticized by “feminazis,” a totally fictional boogeyman that again, makes zero logical sense. Again and again you see men riding under the banner of “logic” time and time again being completely illogical and overemotional, spewing hate faster than they can piss.
This is the beauty of performative intellectualism - it’s nothing but self-serving masturbation. Bring in a bunch of other angry men on the Internet, and it becomes a circle jerk. That’s the beauty of a circle jerk - being around other men, doing this thing we’re typically shamed and told to do in privacy, alone - it’s acceptable, it’s great, it’s fun, and maybe some of these men are turned on by the sight of other men in self-serving pleasure, whether it be their technique or the sounds they make.
Now, that’s perfectly acceptable, as circlejerks usually happen in private places - when you’re getting together and celebrated your supposed intellectual superiority, harassing women and racial minorities, throwing around slurs, trying to hinder groups working towards equality - that’s completely unacceptable, something worth scorn, or “shame tweeting” as poor, oppressed white male Steven Wittens writes on his well designed, yet piss poorly written blog: http://acko.net/blog/storms-and-teacups/
What’s amazing is how searching for that article on Twitter leads to almost all white dudes praising it’s “refreshing,” “brilliant,” “great,” “interesting,” “considerate,” “documented,” “provoking,” “beautiful” take on “the bullshit of the ‘social justice’ warrior culture.” Yet it’s a white dude, writing a hilariously long winded jerk off session where he starts off with, and I quote, “I’d like to reflect on the bigger picture instead, and talk about some uncomfortable truths.”
You hear that? That’s the same sound you hear when King James got the wise idea that he was going to guess what God meant to say, and release the international bestseller “The Bible: King James Version.” At least King James had to assume a throne, this pasty white dude just automatically assumed his authority above all his subjects before speaking “uncomfortable truths” - that Steven cannot see himself as something other than what media has taught him - the all knowing leader above the masses, who takes time out of his busy day to bring enlightenment to those “whining” about “storms in teacups,” declaring this problem already irrelevant without actually listening to women, at all.
That kind of self-assuredness sound familiar? Not even considering the possibility they might be wrong? That’s because it’s faith - not in religion, but the status quo that they don’t even realize they benefit from. Obviously if I don’t see anything wrong with it, those speaking up are just “whining,” right? That devotion runs deep, driving someone’s assuredness to everything from lashing out with rape and death threats, to both online and offline stalking, to writing long, masturbatory blog posts calling women “whiners” and “social justice warriors” and using “logic” to try and speak “truth” on the matter.
So now, we have a very loosely held together cargo-cult of horseshit where the only key to entry is subscribing to an utterly nonsensical set of values, and to vocally defend them to the death of their online reputation. This is the thrill of being a white dude growing up drowning in America media - we learn to empathize with nobody except people that look like us - so of course we learn to make excuses for even the most awful of men, lacking the ability to at least attempt the perspective of someone else.
This is the reality of our society, the complete disconnect from the heroes we claim to look up to. We fail over and over again to live up to such fictional ideas, and instead of rethinking our goals, we insist on doubling down becoming monsters. There’s no good monologues for hurting people, as hard as dudes like Wittens want to try. There’s no medal ceremony for carrying the battle standard of bigotry. There’s no dramatic full circle camera turn where you and your fellow programmer stand back to back and you shout that shit just got real, surrounded by legions of feminazi harpies, armed to the teeth in 8 foot tall fusion-powered battle suits with portable artillery handcannons, as much as you may delude yourself typing an “epic logic burn” to some “uppity slag” on Twitter.
How utterly illogical.
You are really throwing the baby along with the dirty water with this one. The problem is not ‘logic’ or ‘debating’, the real problem was the rise of trolls, people that were expert in derailing debates by attacking vulnerable emotions of their opponents. To let you know what is really pure logic, without interpretation (or trolling) look at a mathematical proof, any. Given the facts, and the rules, the conclusion can be verified by anyone. The problem is that as long as interpretation enters the scene, error margins appear, so by example in Physics, close relative of Mathematics, we cannot have exact values anymore, but approximations, and in social sciences like Psychology, Sociology, Politics, is just the use of statistics what set them apart from pseudoscience and superstition. Is there when the purpose of a debate is to convince an audience instead of getting to a logical conclusion given premises and rules. The very fact that you used a logical-mathematical device to write that rant speaks tons about the validity of logic.
That ‘irrational beast’ you talk about is not related to logic. Even their fallacy calls are usually after an emotional provocation. And you now are in the same wagon, resorting to ridiculing those that differ from your own standpoint. You are slowly becoming another troll, trying to elicit an emotional response from a debate you cannot win because neither side is really willing to retreat from their positions or search for the truth. Because what each side believes is now key to their own self-value as persons, and adopting or even considering a different point of view would mean a hard blow to the ego. Yes its a matter of faith, not of fact.
Trolls just confirmed what we feared, that we humans are unable to discuss meaningfully topics at large scale, that in the bottom we are just hairless monkeys flinging poo at each others. That the best we can do is to associate with our ‘tribe’ and share their values as an identity, and so we have tribes of Social Justice Warriors, Feminists, Media Advocates, Gamers, Men’s Rights Advocates (and others) having occasional clashes in-between. We are not ready to truly exert reason, because a magnetic personality has much more weight in a debate for an audience than a flawless logic point.
Stop pursuing ideals that we as a species cannot realistically reach. Keep calm, and be happy.