>> ^SDGundamX:

@westy
I think having only women in a video explicitly directed at male gamers communicates that only male gamers have weird attitudes towards women gamers. Which, if you've gamed for as long as I think you have, you realize is true--you never come across female gamers asking other female gamers if they're hot or to send pics of themselves.
@Gallowflak
I can't speak for the video's creators, but the message I took away from it is that the behavior continues because the community as a whole allows it to continue and takes a kind of "boys will be boys" attitude towards it all. They're asking the community to think about the issue a bit more and take a stand against it rather than just mute people who are being offensive. I think what they're hoping for is that the community as a whole does a bit of self-reflection.
I do all my online multiplayer on the PC (mostly FPS and RTS) and I got sick of the language and attitudes on the public servers a long time ago (literally years ago). When I play (which is admittedly not often now that I have a family) I usually only play on family-friendly servers that have an admin monitoring 24-7 (homophobic comments, griefing, and other undesirable behavior results in insta-banning). The only people who stick around are mature players just looking to have a good match (and occasionally their kids, who often are just as polite as their parents and often better players than the adults).
One thing I find interesting is that now that I live in Asia and connect to Asian (Japanese, Korean, Hong Kong, etc.) servers, I almost never see any of that undesirable behavior even on the public servers. It seems like the homophobic, misogynistic gamer is a Western cultural product. On the other hand, you will occasionally find racists on the Asian servers trash-talking other Asian groups.


I have had female gamers "hit" on me more than once and the thing is women dont / wont ask for images because often they are less focused on those aspects of attraction , a woman will fancy a guy because of accent , authroity , how friendly they are or some other querke and place more importance on that than raw looks of a guy ( compared to how heavily men way up looks and hence why men want to see an image of a woman) ( in general)

I have played with lots of women and met women on public servers and you get lots of women that game the men and play the men off each other just as much as the men ask for tits or GFO or other stupid shit. you allso get many women that are 100% down to earth easy going and dont hit on people or just converse in a normal way, the same with men.

for example there are just as manny anoying twatty kids/men online as there are nice normal people this video is just stupid and offers nothing to help the issue of discimination which happens to everyone.

I would definitely agree that there is more descrimination against women in general with games becuse its a male dominated thing at this piont in time , but the way for women to deel with it is to tell the men that are bing dicks to fuck off or simply be above it , Its very easy for women to find allies online and alie with non twat men and then game with resnable people.

As for a productive video if a woman made a video that was amusing clever or just showed a compitent woman bieng a woman then that would do far more to counter the discrimination.

Falicea Day comes to mind as a woman that is womany and promotes the image of women gaming in a non retarded and nomal way. But then you have people like Frag Dolls which are the apitomy of retardation.

@westy

I think having only women in a video explicitly directed at male gamers communicates that only male gamers have weird attitudes towards women gamers. Which, if you've gamed for as long as I think you have, you realize is true--you never come across female gamers asking other female gamers if they're hot or to send pics of themselves.

@Gallowflak

I can't speak for the video's creators, but the message I took away from it is that the behavior continues because the community as a whole allows it to continue and takes a kind of "boys will be boys" attitude towards it all. They're asking the community to think about the issue a bit more and take a stand against it rather than just mute people who are being offensive. I think what they're hoping for is that the community as a whole does a bit of self-reflection.

I do all my online multiplayer on the PC (mostly FPS and RTS) and I got sick of the language and attitudes on the public servers a long time ago (literally years ago). When I play (which is admittedly not often now that I have a family) I usually only play on family-friendly servers that have an admin monitoring 24-7 (homophobic comments, griefing, and other undesirable behavior results in insta-banning). The only people who stick around are mature players just looking to have a good match (and occasionally their kids, who often are just as polite as their parents and often better players than the adults).

One thing I find interesting is that now that I live in Asia and connect to Asian (Japanese, Korean, Hong Kong, etc.) servers, I almost never see any of that undesirable behavior even on the public servers. It seems like the homophobic, misogynistic gamer is a Western cultural product. On the other hand, you will occasionally find racists on the Asian servers trash-talking other Asian groups.

Good thing we in the West don't get caught up in crowds, trying to out-grief ourselves over the death of someone who we didn't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-gcULovuPE&feature=related

(EDIT: I'm not saying these two are the same, just that the reactions are both ridiculous.)

I dearly dearly DEARLY hope that the Sift wakes up and stops even acknowledging that shinyblurry is here when he makes his soapbox comments.

I welcome him here as a person, but as an evangelical who is attempting to convert the masses, I am so bone deep bored by him, I can't hardly stand it.

I'm sorry that he upset you so much, Jigga. I know you are grieving. As soon as I heard the news about Hitch, I knew that there would be a communal outpouring of grief here on the Sift.

Ignore him when he has this hat on. There is nothing else for it. Trolling is accepted every single day here, and has driven away many a fine person from the Sift. SB's silly link is nothing, really.

It is your understandable grief talking, yeah?

If you really want to do something, encourage everyone to ignore sb. He'll go away when he stops getting fed. Or rather, the evangelical part will go away. Comments on cat videos as a normal human being, and not as a proseltyzing agent, are always welcome.

Yeah, the concept is great including the fact that theft/robbery/griefing (ie. stuff that happens in the real world) are all kosher.

eg. http://eve.klaki.net/heist/

Any game with the sheer scope for such an event to be pulled off should be applauded, but it certainly doesn't mean it's for everyone. ; )

*Grief at it's base level... (absolute destruction of a child)

I for one have no qualms about rejoicing at this news. I try hard not to take personal joy that Gaddafi is dead, but instead I take joy in knowing that finally Gaddafi will not be ordering the murders of anybody anymore. I believe one CAN hold the position of grief for the death of anybody, even Gaddafi, while at the same time taking joy amidst that grief in the fact that this particular death means less deaths later on and accordingly, less grief.

In much related news, Al Shabab killed a whole bunch of African Union peace keeping forces in Somalia and was dragging their bodies around the streets cheering this morning. Even while holding the position that killing is one of the worst possible moral things to do, you can logically conclude that some people need killing. IMHO Gaddafi was one, and Al Shabab's leadership is another.

Yes, I think this public grief is either insincere or misplaced. Thats a generalisation I know, and there are bound to be exceptions, but for the most part I think its true.

There are famous figures I who's passing would sadden me greatly. Mostly scientists, mostly people that showed me the beauty of reality. The Feynmans and Sagans of today. I suppose in that sense I could rightfully be accused of hypocrisy. If you learnt some life lessons from a speech Steve Jobs made then ok, fair enough, but I mean did it really take him to teach you "memento mori"?

I'm just pissed that a guy can cut all of Apples philanthropic projects, sells overpriced computers in shiny boxes and had above average charisma is suddenly hailed a visionary.

>> ^LadyDeath:

Is not about Apple products and such a thing. This is about a human being who left behind a wife and his children. A person who battled with cancer.RIP Steve ,you made world a better place and you will be truly missed.


Actually, it's not about a man who left behind a wife and kids. I don't know Jobs wife and kids, I don't even think I've even seen a picture of them. Thousands of people with wives and kids die every day, and we don't mourn their passing.

His death means something to people because of the companies and products he helped create. There's nothing wrong with that; if we mourned every random person (regardless of the individual tragedy to their friends and families) we would spend our lives in grief.

Jobs was a visionary and a leader. Whether you liked his vision or not is irrelevant.

And @VoodooV, I don't think he single-handedly did anything. There may have been scores of engineers, designers, etc behind him, but he was the one with balls to risk it on their vision. You say if not him, someone else, well that's true of any great achievement (Crick and Watson with DNA, Newton with pretty much most of science, Hillary with Everest, all had people close behind them). It doesn't matter, what matters is that he did it.

RIP Steve.

at the request of BoneRemake (because my "m night shyalaman is an idiot" rebuttal wasnt long winded enough =P):

sixth sense was "meh" for the following reasons:
"These souls who for whatever reason are not at rest are also not aware that they have passed on. Theyre not part of consciousness as we know it. they linger in a perpetual dream state; a nightmare from which they cannot wake." this may sound familiar. it may sound familiar as the general premise of The Sixth Sense and central to the "twist" (if you could even call it that) ending.

it may also sound familiar as a line from Poltergeist, and also being the central premise of the conflict resolution.
speaking of poltergeist, the open cabinet drawers scene in sixth sense is directly lifted from the moving chairs scene in poltergeist. you may call this an homage, i call it half-assed hackery.

his color reference as hints are just too obvious. theyre vague and ambiguous at first, but once you start noticing em it becomes plainly clear. as for the whole "twist" BRUCE WILLIS IS DEAD OMG YOU FOOLED ME YOU OLD TOSSER i felt it took away from the movie. when i originally went to see the sixth sense with my dad i went to see a tense psychological thriller that would chill me. and for the first 20-30 minutes or so, it did not disappoint..... until my dad and i figured out willis was dead (the "i see dead people" scene gave it away for us). we were dumbfounded at first, wondering what in the hell this had to do with furthering the plot, but we didnt need to wonder anymore once the movie became about bruce willis being all emo about being dead. and the big reveal at the end, considering we already knew, really just made us both scoff. simply put, it was a pretty scare and intense movie when it was about the boy, then it became boring and stupid when it does a 180 and becomes about bruce willis. thats my opinion anyway, tomaytoe-tomawtoe

now having said all of that, there is one, and only one thing, i like about shyalaman: his vision as a director. He's not a genius or anything, but he's pretty damn good. he has a real knack for framing, tone, and pacing. probably the only thing i like about sixth sense was his ability to add tangible tension through masterful pacing and mood setting.
....i take that back. theres two things i liked about sixth sense. the overall directing, and the anniversary dinner scene. that scene really did add an ambiguity to the whole dilemma of willis being dead. on one hand the scene must play out as an emotionally drained wife frustrated (and even pissed off) at her husbands increasing distance. simultaneously she must convey a mournful widow still in grief over her husbands death on their anniversary (and the anniversary of his death if im not mistaken). that scene is legit. but credit must be given to the actress and her portrayal more so than shyalaman because she nailed it beautifully.

whether he makes shitty films or not, sixth sense rocked the boxoffice and gave him some arguably deserved limelight. but his subsequent films proved that he is a one trick pony. his movies became exponentially more and more transparent, more and more boring, and more and more stale, lacking anything of substance. (with the exception of Signs arguably. i personally didnt love it, but i kind of liked it and its a solid enough film if you disregard the shit ending) the fact that his handle of "the twist ending filmmaker" is a passive aggressive insult shows this.

m night shyalaman as a filmmaker just.......sucks. theres really not a better or more concise way to put it. as a director, however, he really does shine......which brings us to devil, a movie in which he wrote and produced but did not direct. so basically the one thing he's actually good at, he didnt fucking do in that movie........and it shows.....its utter shite. at the risk of sounding pretentious, the twist ending (cuz you know theres fucking gonna be one, its a shyalaman movie for christ sake) is so limp and stupid, you can figure it out just from watching the damn trailer (i did).

and as far as the michael bay (barf) comparisons, i think the only difference is this: michael bay knows what he is. he knows exactly what kind of movies he makes. In cinema, motion pictures come in two forms: Films (art form) and movies (entertainment). Michael bay makes the latter, and he knows it, and everyone who watches his movies knows it. shyalaman makes movies masquerading as film. seriously, when your go to device is the plot twist, and you have one in each and every one of your god awful movies, they really lose the "surprise" appeal which utterly defeats the purpose of it in the first place and thus, deserves to be mocked

there, that a thorough enough rebuttal for ya, you crusty bastard? =P

Individuality falls down once we want a society to work. We sacrifice something to make it work, some people want to be part of it without sacrificing - this is naive. You can check out of society and move somewhere else, or try to change it through politics to be more individually-centered. Taxes are not theft, it's a mutually consented agreement, but it was made by our forefathers, to make society work.

Now that sacrifice is not complete and total - we do have quite a lot of freedoms (liberty) within our societies, but these were agreed upon by our forefathers too. The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it and some bad ones. This is what I mean, when I say natural rights don't exist. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. They are agreed upon. We may be comforted to say that our lives are our own, and within our society they are, because the society has agreed that this is a right.

Personally, I don't think guns are an important freedom. I even think there ought to be checks and balances to keep as many mentally unstable, criminals and other bad citizens from getting them. I'm not even comfortable with regular people having them - I don't want one myself, for certain. Just because it happened to be written down in the 1700s, doesn't mean it applies today. This is a right I think we should do away with, because it causes more grief than it solves.

Now mind you, if the american people were actually oppressed, then I would be all for them having something to defend themselves with - but like gun proponents like to say, then they would be able to get them anyway. I'm not talking about stopping guns 100%, I just want to stop 90 % of the nut balls, which a mandatory license would totally do. The other 10 % is another deal.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.

Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.
Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)

Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.

If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.

I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.

Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.

Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.

Brick with buttons. Ha.

"Fund for American Studies." I'd be willing to bet this is a "fund" funded by the deep pocket conservatives.

*viral ad for Capitalism and the Super Wealthy.

I'm not saying what is said isn't true about how new products work, how new technologies get spread.

But good grief -- don't throw in an ad for the Wealthy. Next they'll be saying this is why the wealthy should pay less taxes -- so that they'll have more money to buy $4,000 cell phones.

>> ^00Scud00:

>> ^direpickle:
Minecraft needs to add trains that can connect servers to one another.

Right, that way the griefers can move more efficiently from one server to the next.


Heck yeah! I love watching griefing videos.