kane_magus: (Default)
This post here is essentially a sequel to an earlier post I made back in March. I'm just going to copy/paste some rantage I did over on Facebook into this post.

Rant behind cut )
kane_magus: (Default)
Here is the article on which the Twitter thread is based.


Embedded Twitter thread behind cut. )

Hell, at this rate, maybe I should just bring the Trump tweets tag back. ¬_¬
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
We all know Hanlon's razor, right?

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

In many cases, that's a good philosophy to live by. However, when it comes to Donald Trump and his administration (as well as those currently leading Congress who back him), I believe that the inverse can and perhaps should be applied.

"Never dismiss as mere stupidity that which is indeed actively malicious."

For example, take the recent brouhaha over crowd sizes at the inauguration. Yes, it might seem incredibly stupid for Sean Spicer to hold a press conference in which he blatantly, clearly lied. Yes, it might seem absolutely asinine that Kellyanne Conway then doubled down on it with that "alternative facts" bullshit. "Alternative facts," otherwise known by sane people as blatant, clear lies.

But here's the thing. I don't think the above things were just stupid. Don't get me wrong, they are stupid, but I don't think they're only stupid. I think that these people, more than simply being stupid, are being indeed actively malicious. For a long while now, Trump has been very critical of the press (except, of course, for a few outliers that Trump treats, for the most part, as golden children, such as Faux Noise and Bratbarf Noise [after all, fucking Steve Bannon, former head of Bratbarf, is Trump's Chief Strategist now, heaven help us all]). Lately, Trump's go-to ploy when a piece of news comes out that is critical of him is to simply label said piece of news as "fake news" and dismiss it out of hand.[1] Trumpster fires and sockpuppets on social media then repeat Trump's bawling and amplify it by several orders of magnitude.

Yes, they could have ignored the whole inauguration crowd size thing. That, one would think, would have been the smart thing to do. Had they done so, most people would have simply chuckled over it for a day or two, and then it would have been completely forgotten within a week. But now, thanks to the Streisand effect, because they have focused in on this relatively trivial issue, it has been in the forefront of news for days now, and likely will remain so, especially if they continue to harp on it. (EDIT) Which they are. (/EDIT)

The purpose for this is two-fold. For one thing, it serves quite well as yet another petty distraction from all of the terrible shit that Trump has done in just his first few days in office. Diversion from the real issues with infantile bullshit like this is yet another of Trump's unfortunately successful tactics. In other words, they have weaponized the Streisand effect. So there is that.

However, more importantly, this fracas over crowd sizes is, again, yet another small cog in the ongoing machinery employed by the Trump administration, the sole purpose of which is to discredit the press. And, as I've said before and as I'm sure I'll say again, this machinery has been running far too smoothly. Far, far, FAR too many gullible morons take Trump's claims at face value. They treat his words as unvarnished, gospel truth. They believe him when he says that the press is lying, and that the press is only out to "get him." And, of course, they also believe all the other blatant, clear lies that Trump and his administration (and before that his transition team, and before that his campaign, and before that just Trump, the man) have been incessantly telling.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
"Never dismiss as mere stupidity that which is indeed actively malicious."

One of these statements applies to the Trump administration. I believe it to be the latter, but I also believe that it ultimately will have to be left up to posterity to determine which was the more applicable of the two. Are Trump and his flunkies and his Trumpster fires merely stupid? Or are they actively malevolent? Or, perhaps, are they some degrees of both of those things? Because, indeed, stupidity and malice are not mutually exclusive states of being, and have never been. Even if it's hampered by stupidity, ham-handed malice is still malice. Anyway, time will tell. But the one thing I can absolutely assure you of is that it is at least one of those two.

[1] - And, no, it obviously doesn't help at all when overzealous reporters jump the gun and report on something that didn't happen, instead of pausing and making sure they had their goddamn ducks in a row first. It doesn't even matter that this "story" was merely a few tweets by one guy, and that the guy has already apologized and retracted his erroneous statements. The damage has already been done, and now Trump has more ammunition for his otherwise ludicrous "fake news" hysterics.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Yes, this is indeed a thing that happened on Christmas Day. You cannot make this shit up.

Breitbart, an "alt-right" source of "news" which makes even Faux Noise seem legit by comparison, calls it "fake news," because of course it does.

In any case, it's actually somewhat refreshing to see an actual, relatively subtle dogwhistle again. It was beginning to seem like something of a lost art, after all the blatant bullhorn shit that was Donald Trump's campaign and is Donald Trump's transition and will be Donald Trump's administration. Of course Trumpster fires are going to consider Trump to be the new God-King of the United States, who can apparently do no wrong. They are mistaken, obviously, but it's easy to understand why they might think like this.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Link to previous, which has links to all the others before that. A few of these are less Trump-specific and more just generally politics-related.

Tweets behind cut, as usual. )
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
And here is the other side (or, I guess, the first side) of that "goddamn imbecilic shit-encrusted coin." Shit like this, right here, is why, even now, even after the irrational attacks on James Rolfe for no good reason, I still can't truly fault radical feminists (and even regular non-crazy feminists) for reacting (and overreacting) the way they sometimes do. Because the ones they are up against are indeed some of the nastiest, stinkiest, oiliest, runniest stains of diarrhetic fecal liquid on the underwear of humankind, as shown by their antics here.

Look, I may not give a shit about nuBusters or whatever, and it's actually irrelevant whether I do or don't, because this treatment of Leslie Jones is vile and uncalled for (including, especially, the fake accounts pretending to be her saying some of the most disgusting shit[1]). But then, assholes like that don't care. They don't give the slightest shit. Which is why it is up to the rest of us to collectively stand up and tell these asinine dogfucking assclowns that they need to sit their infantile asses down and shut their goddamn mouths. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that they've done this shit, and until Twitter (and Facebook and Tumblr and wherever else) comes up with better means for users to be able to block assholes like this for good and to prevent them from continually creating sockpuppet accounts to continue the harassment, it's just going to keep on happening.

[1] - Hell, I don't care for that sort of shit even when it's making fun of people I actively hate myself.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
The only real problem with this comic is that instead of being depicted as a monk, the dev would, in too many cases, be more accurately depicted as a second, bigger scorpion (which is itself riding on the shoulder of what we shall call a "typical video game consumer," depicted in this scenario by Lennie Small, or perhaps Hodor).

Here is the associated blog.

(EDIT) Oh, and this is apparently what prompted the Penny Arcade comic/blog. Kotaku whining about being "blacklisted" sounds like so much bullshit to me. (And I'm not saying it's bullshit because I think it didn't happen, because I don't doubt for a minute that it happened, or that I think it's a bad thing, because I don't, at all. I just think it's bullshit that Kotaku has the gall and overly enlarged sense of self-entitlement to whine about it, that's all.) What, because Bethesda or Ubisoft isn't giving them early access shit or whatever other special "perks" Kotaku has become conditioned to accepting anymore? Because Kotaku forwards leaked info for unfinished games in the same manner that computer-illiterate grandmothers forward asinine chain emails? Because Kotaku is, on the whole, a festering shitpile?[1] Yeah, color me shocked that they'd get blacklisted. There are things that Bethesda and, especially, Ubisoft have done that I don't agree with or think are even remotely above board, but in this particular case, if they did indeed "blacklist" Kotaku, then I don't really blame them. Hell, if anything, I applaud them for it. What the hell is stopping Kotaku from doing what most reviewers of products have had to do for decades before now (i.e. go out and fucking buy the games on their own dime after they've been released and then write the review or whatever at that point)?

Fuck Kotaku. The fact that they're feeling butthurt because they're not getting special treatment from a couple of companies anymore is all the reason I need to never bother reading anything they ever write in the future. (Not that I read most of their shit now or for years before now, anyway, outside of extremely rare occasions like this, when I'm linked to them by someone else, which was indirectly by Penny Arcade this time, I guess.)

Hell, I wish all game companies would "blacklist" all games media outlets in this manner. Then, maybe, said games media outlets would actually do their fucking jobs as so-called "journalists" rather than depending almost exclusively on handouts. With that said, though, fuck the game publishers/devs as well, because they're doing their own brand of dirty, underhanded shit when it comes to the review process, themselves.

And, of course, the comments under that Kotaku whine are full of ass-licking sycophants, petting up poor widdle Kotaku and telling them what a good job they're doing. It's sickening.

(EDIT 2) On the other hand, the fact that I'm apparently, ostensibly on the same side of this particular issue as goddamn Breitbart, of all things, makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Because Breitbart is orders of magnitude worse than Kotaku will ever be, generally speaking. (/EDIT 2)

[1] - Type "Kotaku is" into Google, and the first four suggested search terms are "bad," "biased," "garbage," and "trash." Google didn't pull those completely out of the ether. I don't disagree with those suggestions. They're pretty accurate, based on my own observations. (/EDIT)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Did I mention already how this shit is getting way out of hand? Yeah, pretty sure I did do that. (By the way, when I say "this shit" I am, of course, not talking about that article itself, but the asinine #GamerGate bullshit that is the subject of the article, just to be crystal clear.)

Also, I didn't even know that the term apparently originated from, or at least was popularized by, Adam Baldwin... someone who has long been a voice of importance in the video game industry??? Apparently? ō_ô Oh well, if nothing else, he fits right in with all the other asshats like Breitbart and the rest who are proponents of this shit, I guess.)

Found this via Wil Wheaton, in a weird roundabout way via Tumblr, via Facebook. And before you (of the hypothetical variety) get all uppity about how Wil Wheaton has just as much or as little say in this sort of thing as Adam Baldwin does... have you been paying attention to Wil Wheaton at all for the past decade or more? The dude's a nerd through and through (and, obviously, I say that in the best possible light), so I'm much more apt to listen to his take on this sort of thing than some random douchebag like Adam Baldwin or whoever.

Lastly, and I think this is the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned, #GamerGate (before getting that label thanks ostensibly to Mr. Baldwin) apparently had its origins in goddamn motherfucking 4chan. That, right there, should be all you need to know about this horseshit, if you're familiar even a little bit with 4chan. Note how a lot of those links in that Google search there also implicate 4chan as the source of the recent celebrity photo leaks scandal (and that, indeed, that very Wikipedia page also implicates 4chan in the scandal)? Yeah, these are the same assclowns who are now faffing around about "corruption in the game industry" or whatever. What a fucking joke.

So, yeah, in conclusion, fuck #GamerGate in the ass with a cattle-prod wrapped in necrotizing fasciitis-infused razor wire. That's my take on the whole thing, anyway.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I've been seeing a lot of stuff popping up all over the gaming-related areas of the Internet about this whole #GamerGate thing lately, including today[1] in another instance of this sort of asininity. So, finally, I decided to try to find out what it is. Basically, from what I can tell, it all relates back to and started with this shit, but has since been blown up into some sort of massive conspiracy thing. Granted, it's not quite "the moon landing was a hoax" or "the grassy knoll" or "911 was an inside job" levels of nutjobbery, but relative to the video game industry at least, it may as well be on that level. I'll just say that I think it's some weapons-grade paranoid bullshit. While I do believe the video game journalism industry is indeed pretty shitty, I think that's mostly due to gross incompetence and amateurism on the part of most game "journalists" (or "bloggers" or "just guys on the Internet" or whatever they want to call themselves, while getting paid to spout their bullshit) and, yes, due to some low-level shady dealings between more than a few game devs/pubs and so-called journalists, rather than due to some sort of big, crazy feminist Illuminati theory or whatever the hell.

From the Forbes article that was the top-most link in my Google search of "what is gamergate":

"GamerGate appeals to people who feel alienated by the changing face of gaming, people who feel criticized when they've been the minority, people who want to keep gaming the way it was, people who are already prone to assuming conspiracies, and people who feel as if they're being disenfranchised by the changes in society being carried out in gaming."

Well, I feel alienated by the changing face of gaming, criticized when I've been the minority, and want to keep gaming the way it was, sure, and I've said as much in previous entries on this LJ, but that's it, and it's for various other reasons unrelated to how corrupt the game journalism industry might or might not be. #GamerGate actually does not appeal to me at all. I don't buy into the whole conspiracy angle and I think the whole thing is pretty stupid. (The mere fact that they've apparently got frickin' Breitbart on their side should tell you all you need to know about #GamerGate.)

"If there's an actual discussion to be had here about journalistic ethics and gaming, it's worth having. However ... the well is so poisoned it's impossible to have the discussion in any reasonable or useful way."

Yeah, pretty much this. Crazy conspiracy theories are for crazy crackpots and have little place in a much needed adult conversation about the ethics of video game journalism (or lack thereof).

[1] - And, man oh man, take a look at how many butthurt manchildren there are under that PC Gamer article, taking the time to make an account and then post comment (after comment after comment) about how they're never going to read PC Gamer again because of that article. For people who are ostensibly leaving the site forever, they sure can't STFU about how they're going to leave the site forever, that's for sure. I can't help but snicker and roll my eyes. Isn't there a proper term for that type of Internet troll? You know, the one who posts only to make a note of just how hard they're going to unfollow/unsubscribe/whatever from a given site or blog or other such thing because they think it'll somehow hurt the site owner's feelings? I'm pretty sure I saw something like that, but can't think of what it was off the top of my head. If there isn't such a proper term for it, there needs to be. At least most of the commenters under the RPS article seem to be much more reasonable, or at least they aren't being foaming-at-the-mouth ate-lead-paint-chips-as-a-child retarded about it, anyway.

Profile

kane_magus: (Default)
kane_magus

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10 11 1213 14 1516
17 181920 212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 09:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios