@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

@bobknight33
"socialism is not american"

i swear sometimes bob i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

even when people put out,quite correctly i might add,that america has socialism in its economic structure.you respond like they didnt state anything.

it is like you live in this weird bubble and that any information that attempts to enter,that may possibly contradict your own personal understandings.

so when i say that you can have a socialist democracy,i am not just pulling that out of my ass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

or that america already has socialist programs,and a majority of them YOU and your children enjoy:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country
(this is from the von mises institute.not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive ideology.just in case you wanted to pull that tired and stupid response:well,they are a liberal website blah blah blah)

so if YOU think that socialism is SO bad and harmful and utterly un-american.let us revert to a pure capitalist society shall we?

here are the things that we will be saying goodbye to in your new capitalist america:
1.child labor laws.
thats right...your 8 yr old grandchild can now quit her fucking whining and get to fucking work.hmmmm...nothing like forced labor for the children working 14 hr shifts with no breaks,and 6 days a week.no work on sunday!
because:god.

2.minimum wage.
gone will be a basic minimum wage imposed by federal law.now we shall see the TRUE market place in action! of course,since there is surplus of available workers and there is no minimum.we can exploit the most desperate and vulnerable of our society and pay them 25 cents an hour!
take THAT china!

3.public schools.
education? only if your are part of the new american aristocracy! and what child will be going to school for an education? they are too busy working at the plant! pfffft..education.it is over-rated anyways.

4.fire and police.
now why would i spend my hard earned money in taxes, so my neighbor can be protected from fire damage and property damage? pay for your own protection fuckface! oh...you're too busy working 3 jobs,making .25 per hr? and your kids are working too? aww too bad loser.shoulda pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.

5.voting.(yep.you read that right)
i am a hard working american.who pays his taxes and owns property AND a business! and i JUST gave my employees a raise to .27 per hour! i have a RIGHT to vote! why should those non-property owning losers get a vote as well? i am obviously far more important than they are.whats next? women voting? the horror.

6.social security and medicaid.
now why would we waste time and resources providing a safety net for those losers again?how is it MY responsibility that they couldnt plan for their sunset years? i did give them a raise didnt i? fucking crybabies.and so what if they actually PAID into those programs.i feel better creating my own reality by calling those programs "entitlements",because it makes me feel morally superior to them.

7.public libraries.
there is that pesky "education" again.why should i be responsible for someone else family and their access to literature and information?what do you think i live in? a society? with neighbors? communities?this is just more government intrusion upon MY life and MY freedoms!

look man,i know i am being a cheeky shit in this comment,and i am not anti-capitalist..at all.
capitalism has brought great things for society as a whole..BUT..there is a difference between capitalism and unfettered capitalism,and what we have now is NOT capitalism.

it is socialism for the rich:
see: the bank bailout
see: corporate subsidies (welfare)
see:corporate tax breaks (welfare)
see:our current political system which has been totally over-run by corporate money.a corporate coup de'tat.
which we are all fed the bullshit line of how wonderful captialism is,but the only beneficiaries are corporations,wall street and the dept of defense.

the only people that get to engage in capitalism are the poor and middle class,because actually having to compete is for suckers and losers.

Screw your 'he deserved what he got' attitude. The police are not judge, jury, and executioner. It's their job to stop criminals and collect evidence...period. If they can't do that job without resorting to ACTUALLY nearly brutally killing compliant people, they shouldn't be cops, they should be cons.

Hitting the cop car is not "nearly killed two officers", they apparently weren't injured enough to require treatment, hardly "nearly killed" in my book.

"What if" arguments are the bastion of people who can't make an argument with the facts, so they feel the need to create new 'facts' to rail against, IMO....but OK, I'll play along...What if this video didn't exist? I suggest that the officers wouldn't even go on paid leave, the action that's been takes thus far...sending them on paid vacation.
How does one get THAT deal, screw up royally and criminally at your job in a way that's likely to cost your 'business' millions in damages, they'll stand by you and pay for vacation for a few months while they 'look into it'. WHAT?!?

If this is the treatment one can expect when criminals DO stop, as he clearly did at the beginning of the video, why on earth would anyone not continue to run like their life depends on it, which it nearly did in this case? That's not at all reasonable.

Funny that you mention it. (I'm baaaack.)

Notice how the first words from the host are a smug, preemptive remark about the recently departed officer who *ahem* "was by-the-way African American".

Then immediately they show two older black mans to confirm the FauxNews Agenda (you know, like the Gay or Black Agenda but for real)

Black Lives Matter is calling attention to the exact "hypocrisy" you're "pointing out" with your - OMG. BLACK ON BLACK CRIME STATS ARE AN ACTUAL CONCERN OF MINE BUT NOT THE BLACK COMMUNITY FOR SOME REASON - Bullshit.

Because what you'd said before {Republi-tards figured out that being Politically Correct is the only way for them to be politically popular, that is} is something along like lines of..

Black are sub-human and incapable of anything but savagery, so of course they'd killed each other.

So EITHER.. you're feinting concern for Black on Black Crime

OR.. {Ahem. this one} implying that black people are too shitty, stupid and fuck up to even approach the civil Republican Bastion society Right-Wing Talk Radio has sculpted in your mind.

p.s.- I know I'm yellin' at crazy person, guys. And sure.. that makes me crazy too.

But he's just such a relentlessly ignorant c__tbag. .. I mean. FauxNewsTalkRadio.. is.. bag.. of c..stuff

That's pretty disgusting....but sadly not at all unexpected. Various factions have seemingly taken control of the bastions of higher learning and systematically destroyed what I always saw as their fundamental function, fostering an ability to logically think for one's self. Anyone not on the 'right' side must be on the 'wrong' side and not worth listening to...or worthy of allowing others to listen to, I guess. That ain't learnin'...that's just mutual mental masturbation.
It's pretty funny/sad/telling that supporters of Palestine are called anti-Semitic, since Palestinians are also Semites, aren't they? The word doesn't mean 'Jewish', it's an ethnicity that includes 'Arabs'.

If you truly like this site, why do you constantly and consistently denigrate it in your comments?
I would bet that at least 90% of internet trolls would say the same thing...'I'm not a troll, I just hate (or-"have to hold my nose at posting" of 'X') most everything and everyone on or about this site and I'm going to tell you about what I see as it's problems and foibles daily. I have every right to express my opinion.'...yes, you have a right...but they way you go about it makes you a troll, IMO.

If I went to a right wing leaning message board and, daily, told them what misguided morons they all are, and how the site is worthless because it's nothing more than a bastion for the idiot right and all the misguided, America hating morons in it, I would be a troll. It would be obvious that I would not be intending to change minds, only to insult and lambast those I disagree with.

Please to explain...how are you different in the way you post here?

EDIT: Ultra left DOJ!!!! I was rolling on the floor at that one buddy, good one.
Almost as funny as you calling yourself "conservative"...what you are is a neo-con...which means you want to return to a past that never existed...a "new" (imaginary) past you wish to conserve...therefore "neo-con".
I am actually an old school republican, which are fiscally 'conservative' (which means we try to conserve our funds by spending them wisely on programs that save money as a whole, like upkeep of infrastructure...not the same thing as removing all spending/taxation)
-and a social liberal (Yes, real republicans are (were) anti-war, anti-corporatist, anti-religion in government, pro-environment, pro-freedom to choose your own morality, actual thinkers. Regan changed all that 180 deg. Now I have NO party that represents me. It's hilarious to hear you guys call me a "lefty" over and over!)

not exactly a secret.
elites by the very definition feel themselves superior to the befuddled herd (actual term used) and therefore feel compelled to "guide" them and "control" them.
this attitude crosses partisan lines.
so on one side you have educated,indoctrinated elites who disdain the masses but use the language of empathy and compassion to manipulate and on the other side of the aisle you have a perverted aynrand/jesus monster to manipulate the masses.

either way....you are being manipulated.

and there aint NO way the republicans are getting rid of obamacare.only the largest bailout gimme to big pharma and the health insurance industry.that would be political suicide.the entire policy was written by the heritage foundation for fucks sake! not exactly a bastion of liberal ideologies.

just as no republican will repeal roe vs wade.
they will use abortion like a battering ram to get their religious base into a frothy frenzy of hate and self-righteousness,but no way would they EVER let go of that boom stick.

this video is stupid and is only being used to create a platform so a certain someone can jump on his soapbox and preach his religion.

fuck that shit.go on a street corner and peddle your wares.this video has zero relevance.

downvote*

Well, OK....if you live(d) there you DO know it better than I. I have family near by, and have driven through many times. It always seemed far more 'conservative' than you say, but again, I never lived there, I'm just going by fleeting impressions and second hand info.
What set me off was 2 part...first that you didn't bother to watch the video but still commented on it as if you had (not so bad a thing, but odd), and second the implication that anti-homeless laws were a 'LIBERAL' thing and not a 'CONSERVATIVE' thing, because the videos shown/seen have clearly shown the opposite. Apologies if I went overboard.
The one's on film saying 'feeding them is keeping them homeless' or 'we don't want homeless people here, period, and anything that removes them or makes them uncomfortable is what we want' have all been republican/tea party elderly white people. It may be they're the outliers and it really IS a 'liberal' plan, but I ask you, which 'party' does the chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust belong to (I honestly don't know)? (I must admit I was really surprised to see the mayor is a Democrat).
So, while you seem to be at least partially correct (maybe totally), I hope you understand why I was (apparently) mistaken, since all the vocal people out there promoting starving the homeless are conservatives.
Where I live, it's a 'liberal' bastion, and we DO feed the homeless here along with other services they're offered, and we have a very vocal 'conservative' population that wants to do exactly what Ft Lauderdale did, make feeding them or offering ANY service illegal, including police and medical services. They're pretty hard core about it.

Yes, I think it was about 'starve the poor' as a method of removing them from sight, either by death or (more likely) displacement. It's not so much they want them dead, it's just they don't care if that's what it takes to remove them. That in itself SEEMS to be a 'conservative' mindset, not 'liberal'.
...but perhaps a Florida 'liberal democrat' is more right wing than a West coast 'conservative republican'?

Ahh, and we all live in a cesspool of retards and liars. Never forget! ;-)

@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

READ THE VERY FIRST POST.

or this

or this (from Forbes, that well known bastion of leftist propaganda)

I have to say I loved both the art style and the music. The "hum" button was a stroke of genius.


I often found myself stopping to just listen to Red hum along. The story is good, but although I haven't finished it yet, it hasn't hooked me as much as Bastion.

Finally, the gameplay is..... ok. It's certainly entertaining, but it just didn't click with me as much as I thought it would.

Still though, I'd buy this as a piece of interactive art.

I've known cops my whole life -- 1 ex-girlfriend's father, as well as a household of them in my family; serving the church and the state equally. And all of them lawful evil. Assholes with stories about being assholes. I'm sorry, but fuck you if you're a cop.

I don't care if you're a "good" cop. I've watched so-called good cops follow shitty orders and realize at the end of the mess that they had done wrong. This goes on CONSTANTLY; not simply a one-off, "oh cops are people too" scenario.

Not to mention their highway banditry.

Until the current state of police training and enforcement methods are reevaluated and they return rights to citizens, I cannot abide their involvement in domestic disputes and highway enforcement.

Sure, they save us from the evil that men would do, but as they currently stand, the American police force is a bastion and a playground for bullies that want to remain above the law.

And their internal affairs system allows this to persist. No transparency, which means the law is always blurred for their benefit. Luckily evidence beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes surfaces. Sometimes.

Sometimes...

Acting shocked when women do things better than men is the last bastion of misogyny.

Bastion has a wonderful soundtrack and getting it alongside with the game complements it so well. Music like that is so rare these days. I'm also looking forward to Transistor. The gameplay looks very interesting and I sure hope that it'll come out for PC at the same time as other platforms (PS3/4). Hopefully they won't showcase it too much. Last thing I need are games that're shown around a lot that end up generating too much hype.