• Cardboard Children: Cards Against Humanity
    25 replies, posted
[url]http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RockPaperShotgun/~3/gV6GRJZJRk0/[/url]
Here we see a writer use a news website as a blog to call a game shit, when in truth, he just has a problem with the creator of said game who might, or might not, (probably not) be a rapist. Get your shit together RPS.
"It's not a game at all. It's a pastime." So a game??
[quote]I have no idea if the allegations are true. I know nothing about it, and neither do you. I have my assumptions, that’s all. Choose a card from your hand. They’re all as horrible as each other.[/quote] It's funny because he spent like 5 paragraphs before this sentence all but saying he thinks Temkin raped someone.
CAH is apparently the best game ever. It's horrible as hell in the sense that it turns you into someone with worser views than Hitler himself ("ingame"), people get mad over it, and both of those points are awesome.
[QUOTE]The key selling point of Cards Against Humanity is that it’s offensive. The questions are offensive and the answers are offensive, and even the cards that aren’t offensive can be made super-offensive by playing them to the right question. The UK edition of the game has cards about Maddie McCann and Hillsborough, and you can use these cards to make funny jokes [B]about the deaths of kids and football fans[/B].[/QUOTE] That's a horrible argument because I'm pretty sure nowhere in the included [URL="http://s3.amazonaws.com/cah/CAH_Rules.pdf"]rules[/URL] say you have to make a joke about their deaths. I mean it requires the player to make the choice to play the cards not the game.
[QUOTE]“Part of rape culture that hurts everyone is that it makes it difficult to talk about what is and is not consent, and makes it incredibly scary for people to speak up when their boundaries are crossed. It is entirely possible she read something completely different than I did into an awkward college hookup.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Temkin says in his post that he’ll “continue to be a feminist”, just after perpetuating some ridiculous rape culture myths. Yeah, maybe you should print that on a card, bro. It’s pretty funny.[/QUOTE] i dont even see the problem with the former statement
[QUOTE=mchapra;45400544]i dont even see the problem with the former statement[/QUOTE] Probably the part where Temkin insinuated that consent is a fuzzy area rather than a clear yes/no. Yeah, right here: [quote]I’d like to point Temkin to a part of rape culture that actually hurts everyone – this constant bullshit that there is any grey area around consent. This notion is entirely alien to me, and instantly causes a narrowing of the eyes and a rise of an eyebrow. The idea that a guy can cross a boundary and not realise it astounds me. That kind of language shifts all of the responsibility onto the other party. It was maybe too scary for the person to speak up when that boundary was crossed. I mean – seriously. We might never know for sure what is or isn’t true in this case, but irresponsible language still needs to be called out when we see it.[/quote]
[quote]Witness testimony is, in fact, evidence. Sure, his word is evidence too – but the existence of his word doesn’t negate her word as evidence. That’s not how it works.[/quote] Witness testimony is also seen as the single weakest form of evidence in court. It's evidence, sure, but it's really weak and by itself gets cases nowhere. Also, [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7333627/ShareX/2014-07/15T16-59-37.png[/img] Hmmm. [editline]15th July 2014[/editline] [quote]I’d like to point Temkin to a part of rape culture that actually hurts everyone – this constant bullshit that there is any grey area around consent. This notion is entirely alien to me, and instantly causes a narrowing of the eyes and a rise of an eyebrow. The idea that a guy can cross a boundary and not realise it astounds me. That kind of language shifts all of the responsibility onto the other party. It was maybe too scary for the person to speak up when that boundary was crossed. I mean – seriously. We might never know for sure what is or isn’t true in this case, but irresponsible language still needs to be called out when we see it.[/quote] How is acknowledging the fact that he could have been thinking something totally different than she was shifting blame? If anything, that's an admission of guilt.
This feels more like a Kotaku article.
The game is really fucking fun to play. "For my next trick I will pull _______ out of _______" Wisdom from an old black man; Michael Jackson
...Did I just read a regular article getting hijacked by character assassination? I mean, I would be okay with the piece if it was actually honest enough to be upfront about what it wanted to discuss, but this thing puts up a facade about reviewing a card game then immediately shoves it aside for yellow journalism. The article even notes how much of a bait-and-switch this is [i]in midst of doing it[/i].
[QUOTE=Pennywise;45400741]...Did I just read a regular article get hijacked by character assassination? I mean, I would be okay with the piece if it was actually honest enough to be upfront about what it wanted to discuss, but this thing puts up a facade about reviewing a card game then immediately shoves it aside for yellow journalism. The article even notes how much of a bait-and-switch this is [i]in midst of doing it[/i].[/QUOTE] Remember; If someone probably did something bad once, it invalidates everything they've ever done until the end of time. Like, imagine if some guy cured AIDS, and was later accused of being a rapist. It's then our responsibility to boycott that cure because if you use it then you're just supporting rape!
[QUOTE=Pennywise;45400741] I mean, I would be okay with the piece if it was actually honest enough to be upfront about what it wanted to discuss, but this thing puts up a facade about reviewing a card game then immediately shoves it aside for yellow journalism. The article even notes how much of a bait-and-switch this is [i]in midst of doing it[/i].[/QUOTE] How does it put up a facade? I know the article title is a bit misleading, but the little header thing says "On the Temkin boycott" and the article starts with an italicized trigger warning.
[QUOTE=Swiket;45400854]How does it put up a facade? I know the article title is a bit misleading, but the little header thing says "On the Temkin boycott" and the article starts with an italicized trigger warning.[/QUOTE]This column is a regular series meant to review card/board games, the title has not been changed to reflect this at all (no, a "little header thing" squirreled away to a corner does not really remedy that), and of course an article about Cards Against Humanity is going to have warnings about content. Aside from the little header thing, which is typically just there to say "Hey this is a featured article", little has been done to differentiate itself from the other articles from the series -- and the fact that it's actually part of that series is an issue in itself. If you want to make an article discussing issues with a guy, you make an article titled "Issues With This Guy" and put forward your ideas there. You do not write an article titled "About This Game", use the game as a simple segue into discussing issues with the Guy, then publish it in a continuing series dedicated to reviewing games.
It's funny, significantly more of the article is about the Temkin allegations than cards against humanity, yet I still know more about cards against humanity than I know about the Temkin allegations. It's almost all just vague bile. I can understand why the author would want to cover this, but this... Isn't really coverage. At least not good coverage.
aren't RPS supposed to be a PC gaming site?
[QUOTE=Ellistron;45401357]aren't RPS supposed to be a [B]PC gaming[/B] site?[/QUOTE] It would be nice if they were even one of the 2.
Fucking, this guy is a douchebag. Max stated all this [URL="http://blog.maxistentialism.com/post/61535552966/as-you-may-have-surmised-from-the-instagrams-and"]instead[/URL] but because Cards Against Humanity is offensive to some people this whole thing is wrong apparently.
Do you honestly see this guy doing something like that when he says this kinda shit? It doesn't fit him at all.
[QUOTE=Swilly;45402474]Fucking, this guy is a douchebag. Max stated all this [URL="http://blog.maxistentialism.com/post/61535552966/as-you-may-have-surmised-from-the-instagrams-and"]instead[/URL] but because Cards Against Humanity is offensive to some people this whole thing is wrong apparently.[/QUOTE] jesus christ that blog makes me hate everyone even more now, I wish I could ironically kill myself
[img]http://puu.sh/aamco/e595393195.png[/img]
"PC Gaming since 1873" This website has become an absolute joke
Rock, Paper, SJWs is more like it.
"Rape is never a misunderstanding." So when do we review the game or did I accidentally go on Tumblr.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.