• Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
    5,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Shibbey;50182275]It's belittling and mocking bigots (which I have no problem with) by using their language style as an obvious joke. It kinda lessens the impact of hate speech if people are already accustomed to hearing it as a joke[/QUOTE] It's actually really counterproductive and if you think about it, that stupid "mockery" gives real bigots ammo. Y'know why I don't tell people that I'm trans? Because the people who I'd tell would immediately compare me to tumblrinas and people who are fucky on this website. Because trans people are just "scene kids" or "rebellious". It really, really hurts the image of LGBT people when it's like "haaha im just being like them mommy are you proud!"
[QUOTE=Shibbey;50182275]It's belittling and mocking bigots (which I have no problem with) by using their language style as an obvious joke. It kinda lessens the impact of hate speech if people are already accustomed to hearing it as a joke[/QUOTE] It's not an obvious joke. You know why? Because the fact that there are people who use it seriously in the first place means that it's entirely probable that you aren't joking, and are in fact, retarded.
I'm not too sure exactly, but there's a rise of a certain kind of attitude (mainly in America) whereby it's almost seen as though there are no political ideologies of people with their own moral viewpoints and conflicts, but that it's merely a case of the intelligent with their correct views of the world and that all other ideologies come from a position of pure ignorance and bigotry. For instance when Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples, she was painted not only just as somebody who didn't know how the law worked, but even people claimed that she did not understand her own religion or that she had an ideology of any kind she based her beliefs upon. They were rooted in pure bigotry and ignorance, that she wasn't "wrong" per se, but actually "mistaken" in that she didn't understand anything and needed correcting. Now that's a potentially troublesome example, but it needs to be said. It's a kind of cancerous smug attitude that thinks that all opposing viewpoints are simply mistaken and that the plurality of political opinions in opposition can be summed up as irrelevant. Of course when it comes to explaining why political lunatics like Donald Trump hijacked the Republican party or why minorities refuse to vote for Bernie Sanders, a common response is "they are voting against their own interests, they don't know what's good for them". Well, once you realise that people are talking down to you constantly and don't take your views into account what else are these people who "don't know what's good for them" going to do? They're sure as hell not going to vote for the candidate you like. The widespread viewpoint almost sees the "liberal" tradition as being the sole intellectual one of America, and that any other ones are based in either ignorance or kneejerk reactionaryism. I mean how else did George Bush not only get into power but maintain it for eight years and to get much of what he wanted achieved? He is (and continues to be) an incredibly intelligent and articulate man who exploited the fact that his detractors misunderestimated him. He played off the "i'm a dumb man" schtick for eight fucking years and because of that he managed to get what he wanted and avoided drawing attention to his less admirable policies or morals because everybody saw him an idiot. Now it's 2016 and people are wondering why this election is such a mess.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50177145]Yes. I do. "I don't really think it's that big of a deal", yes, of course you don't because you aren't part of the group that's being questioned in many of those cases. If I were to go "Well, if it weren't for the niggers", and then you say "Hey that's not cool". Well guess what, according to your logic, you have no right to complain about what I say, you're not black! Repeat ad nauseum for any and all groups you don't apply to. When LGBT people go around trying to be hip and cool and "rebellious :^)" by aping the language of racists and bigots, it makes me want to knock their goddamn teeth out because it does nothing but further solidify the opinions of hateful people.[/QUOTE] I'm a Mexican, and I don't get upset when people say "the Mexicans". It's literally what I am. I'm in a house full of [I]black[/I] people. I don't know what's wrong with saying "the blacks". It's not the same as saying "the niggers". And throughout the civil rights movement it seems like "the blacks" was common use and not necessarily that out of line. And saying "the whites" doesn't seem abrasive either. Sure, assholes can use the "<color>" as part of an insult, but it's not inherently terrible. This is kind of my problem with a lot of slurs in general. If someone starts using a word in a bad way, suddenly it's a racial slur that no one can use ever. It's ridiculous. "Black people" is somehow more acceptable than "the blacks". Maybe words should reflect the use of the word "jew", where if you're an asshole it's suddenly a antisemetic slur to reflect your [I]antisemetic tone[/I].
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50182560]I'm a Mexican, and I don't get upset when people say "the Mexicans". It's literally what I am. I'm in a house full of [I]black[/I] people. I don't know what's wrong with saying "the blacks". It's not the same as saying "the niggers". And throughout the civil rights movement it seems like "the blacks" was common use and not necessarily that out of line. And saying "the whites" doesn't seem abrasive either. Sure, assholes can use the "<color>" as part of an insult, but it's not inherently terrible. This is kind of my problem with a lot of slurs in general. If someone starts using a word in a bad way, suddenly it's a racial slur that no one can use ever. It's ridiculous. "Black people" is somehow more acceptable than "the blacks". Maybe words should reflect the use of the word "jew", where if you're an asshole it's suddenly a antisemetic slur to reflect your [I]antisemetic tone[/I].[/QUOTE] I see where you're coming from, but generally it's not even the tone itself when using a "the mexicans/jews/blacks" that makes it weird. It makes it sound like all members of this group of people are somehow some sort of alien lifeform, while "Mexicans" is just the proper demonym for somebody from Mexico, and "black people" is just unambiguously referring to people who are black, as opposed to some sort of nebulous group of people that form some sort of hivemind. Maybe it's just me though, and I definitely agree that just because somebody used a term in the wrong tone is suddenly a slur is fucking retarded [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] I think we can all agree however that context is king of all
Do you have to say "Republican [I]people[/I]"? How about "Muslim [I]people[/I]"? Why does the absence of the word "people" make those less alien than saying "the blacks"? I get that using "blacks" can be interpreted as dehumanizing and a focus on their color, but it shouldn't always be viewed as dehumanizing and skin color is sometimes an important point of discussion. "The blacks in a lot of areas are unfairly incarcerated" is a fair statement to make. "The gays in Japan aren't allowed to marry" is a fair statement to make. And I don't think that making color and sexual orientation an important factors of their personalities is the wrong thing to do all the time. Sometimes, you should be characterized by your homosexuality when you're fighting for homosexual rights. It's powerful. On the other hand, referencing someone as "a gay" in the work context is stupid, irrelevant, and possibly bigoted.
To the first part, no, because "Republicans" and "Muslims" are proper demonyms. Personally I just dislike it because of the weird emphasis the "the" adds, and I don't really have all that much to add to the argument
I actually think older games are objectively (lol) better and encourage more exploration, problem solving, and hand eye coordination. This of course fluctuates with the genre. Also people who shit on games due to "nostalgia goggles" piss me off. There's a reason why we have good memories of games, and most of the time when you go play them to again they are a fucking blast. Shadows of the empire is still a great game pleaseeeee
i am a genius
Recently someone told me that games have "evolved", and it bothered me because they gave the implication that the evolution was positive. Evolution doesn't have to mean anything - it's just change. Things weren't inherently worse back then, and things aren't inherently better now.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50182783]encourage more exploration, problem solving,[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/MystCover.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50182808]Recently someone told me that games have "evolved", and it bothered me because they gave the implication that the evolution was positive. Evolution doesn't have to mean anything - it's just change. Things weren't inherently worse back then, and things aren't inherently better now.[/QUOTE] things are better now in the video game industry for sure, it is infinitely easier for someone to get into game development at this point, and even sell their game online for infinite distribution. Unless you're talking about like gameplay mechanic standards, then I understand.
I mean really I think that limitations have allowed game developers of years past to focus more on what's fun and what works rather than sheer content and graphics/social media. You used to have to rely on a style and being unique, now you can just get your blockbustery sequals out and people will buy buy buy. Don't even get me started on the movie industry. I loathe the recent trend of comic book movies and reboots to the point of depression [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] But I do agree more people have access to tools to make games, which is good. The indie scene can be pretty great
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50182835]I mean really I think that limitations have allowed game developers of years past to focus more on what's fun and what works rather than sheer content and graphics/social media. You used to have to rely on a style and being unique, now you can just get your blockbustery sequals out and people will buy buy buy. Don't even get me started on the movie industry. I loathe the recent trend of comic book movies and reboots to the point of depression[/QUOTE] Understandable, but a wrong assumption. With games like Might and Magic I can guarantee you that if the companies creating them worked with less primitive and restrictive soft and hardware, the game would be entirely different. It isn't so much what was fun and what worked, but more of what they could actually do in the first place. [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] And as for the blockbuster situation of videogames, it's rather readily apparent that you have no idea the sheer amount of shovel ware one could find if you merely looked. It's just that because nowadays what they were advertising just isn't as relevant anymore that they've faded from the minds of the public, and presumably from its game libraries.
Also for my second unpopular opinion, I think that h3h3 clings on to previously successful jokes too long before moving on to new ones, and the fan base is on the verge of becoming too obsessed in a cringey way [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] Marble madness and robotron 2048 are the two best arcade games of all time
That kind of happens with every internet fanbase that gets large enough
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50182835]I mean really I think that limitations have allowed game developers of years past to focus more on what's fun and what works rather than sheer content and graphics/social media. You used to have to rely on a style and being unique, now you can just get your blockbustery sequals out and people will buy buy buy.[/QUOTE] this has always happened though
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50179678]I almost dont wanna know why Dunkey is a terrible person but I'll bite I guess[/QUOTE] i mean terrible as in stupidly flawed. I'm aware that everyone is flawed but when you make a video saying that there is nothing wrong with you when there's actually something wrong with you, then to me that's considered stupidly flawed. He acted like any cancerous teammate in a MOBA game and got a week ban for it. It's when he started acting like a child on youtube I started disliking him. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzgbZL12VI[/url] Starting going on about how the game sucks, and that his toxic behavior is not because of his shitty attitude but because of the game is terrible, and how it isn't a fun game all because he got a week ban for being an angry nerd. He starts simplifying mobas to his benefit, starts bashing the game's mechanics, and says that league provides no opportunities for good players to be good. He's like every cancerous MOBA player who after something doesn't go his way, he blames everyone but himself. I couldn't help but seriously dislike him for that bullshit. There's an irrational hate towards mobas and dunkey is using this to his advantage. Bashing the MOBA genre for being unfun is like bashing Roguelikes for being unfun, the game itself isn't bad it's just the game isn't for the player.
You should be able to shit talk as much as you want on online games, as long as it doesn't involve threats or doxxing or something. People are too thin skinned. I admit I rage the Fuck out when someone is being toxic but whatever, it's life. But game developers also have the freedom to ban whoever so meh
Jokes on you for liking MOBAs bud
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50182808]Recently someone told me that games have "evolved", and it bothered me because they gave the implication that the evolution was positive. Evolution doesn't have to mean anything - it's just change. Things weren't inherently worse back then, and things aren't inherently better now.[/QUOTE] To build on this, I'd much rather have a well done linear game than having poorly done "open world" games like we do today. Like, people adore Half-Life 2 because of the way it plays and its story. It didn't need to be "open world" to play well at all
Who actually cares if he got salty about league and said it sucks Literally every single league player has done that, usually on an interval of once every one or two hours
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50183139]To build on this, I'd much rather have a well done linear game than having poorly done "open world" games like we do today. Like, people adore Half-Life 2 because of the way it plays and its story. It didn't need to be "open world" to play well at all[/QUOTE] Some games I have to wonder why they even bothered. Like, LA Noire had a big open world and nothing to do in it, Mafia 2 apparently had a big open world and nothing to do in it, why even do that? They probably would have been better off as more linear games if they couldn't do a sandbox worth a damn. All their sandboxes amount to are more open faced chase scenes and a whooooooooole lot of driving from point a to point b.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50183153]Who actually cares if he got salty about league and said it sucks Literally every single league player has done that, usually on an interval of once every one or two hours[/QUOTE] except he's just as bad as the people he's complaining about a shitton of people have said (a few fpers included) he trolls and feeds quite a bit when things don't go his way. other people who complain about league don't make whiny ass videos about how it's terrible from the ground up, and that it literally makes you hate your friends AND manage to get people on their side about it just because they're funny dude's a hypocrite, his toxic attitude is just the cherry on top [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] for the record i think he's a great content creator. just not one i'd like to interact with
Open world games are considerably easier to create narrative content for; people designing missions don't need to be level artists because the setting already exists. A lot of missions in GTAV could've taken place anywhere, and they have a large number of locations to easily slot DLC content into (on top of the gameplay benefits of having an open world.)
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50183153]Who actually cares if he got salty about league and said it sucks Literally every single league player has done that, usually on an interval of once every one or two hours[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Glitchman;50183125]You should be able to shit talk as much as you want on online games, as long as it doesn't involve threats or doxxing or something. People are too thin skinned. I admit I rage the Fuck out when someone is being toxic but whatever, it's life. But game developers also have the freedom to ban whoever so meh[/QUOTE] I don't care about the fact that the was salty, I care about how salty he was. Sure, get pissed off at another player. Sure, get pissed off about the fact that you received a ban over flaming some other scrub. But when you make a youtube video with terrible logic and reasoning, blaming everyone but yourself, then there's a huge problem.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50183139]To build on this, I'd much rather have a well done linear game than having poorly done "open world" games like we do today. Like, people adore Half-Life 2 because of the way it plays and its story. It didn't need to be "open world" to play well at all[/QUOTE] I'm really a fan of the level design used in the Deus Ex games where the levels progress in a linear fashion, but within each level there are multiple paths to explore and take, and a bunch of shit to find.
[QUOTE=Carlito;50184289]I'm really a fan of the level design used in the Deus Ex games where the levels progress in a linear fashion, but within each level there are multiple paths to explore and take, and a bunch of shit to find.[/QUOTE] I'd rather games be like that. There's a crapload of lost potential otherwise
Choices and alternate paths are all well and good but I do love me some Half-Life 2-styled linear level design as long as it's really intricately thought out like HL is.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;50185107]This is just plain wrong, the world is designed around the story and setpieces, theres tons of locations in the open world that wouldnt make interesting missions, you can easily notice the level of detail changing drastically in mission areas If artists arent there you get contact missions from gtao, boring killfests with no design but parked cars for cover[/QUOTE] it's definitely not a clear cut "map design stage/mission design stage" but you can tell they made a few different runs for detail levels, and team organization was almost certainly planned to take advantage of this
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.