I like opium for the masses anyways (well maybe not orginised religion, just wont make it for me) but stuff like beer, watching the simpsons and online gaming.
Did the sort of person who becomes a typical MMO player ever have any political representation to lose?
Guess I've rambled and asked rhetorical questions much like the OP. But I can't help thinking about an event in my guild a while back. A Lebanese member of the guild found out another player was from Israel. I wasn't online when it happened, but apparently guild chat became quite heated. Eventually things were sorted out, and both players remained in the guild, and continued to play alongside eachother in raids. So maybe there's hope!
Dear antipathy, sorry for cropping your "wall of text" *smiles*. I kept and quoted the above for it's exactly what in contradiction to the OP makes me smile. Finally some real color into this thread ! Be well.
Also quoting some lyrics from Combichrist for everyone to enjoy while reading !
Not compare, contrast. The baby had no choice. This guy did. Obviously something went wrong. What went wrong is he didn't seek help.
As someone who has and does suffer with bi-polar,
oh before I continue, just so that other guy doesn't think I "deserve to die" because of natural selection. In my case its most probable that the physical trauma to head when I was hit with a pole caused it as that's when everything started going down hill. So its probably not a genetic disposition or "natural selection" in mycase if I happen to die as a result of something that could be attributed to it.
Anyway as I was saying as someone who has bi-polar, it not like you just know something is wrong and I need help. Even when things start getting bad and when you've lived your whole life considering yourself normal and being considered normal you'd be suprised just how bad things need to get before you even start thinking something may be wrong, its still not easy to just ask for help and definitly not justifying people defending others claiming they "deserved to die".
Inability to ask for help when needed, even to seek food, shelter, sleep, water, contraindicates survival, especially in this case.. That's natural selection. It's a large leap from deserves no sympathy to deserves to die. I don't advocate executing people who play video games too much. I do say if you're too stupid to move out of your own stink to grab a soda I'm not going to shed crocodile tears over your passing. His death wasn't the result of an external factor. He didn't have a head injury and video games didn't kill him either.
Firstly this guy wasn't so stupid, he couldn't seek food shelter sleep water etc. He lived 28 years and ss we agreed earlier something must have went wrong. I cannot imagine a healthy personally mentally doing this. You don't need a injury to the head to have extraordinary circumstances in your life to unbalance you mentally and we don't know what happened. Now only if he was genetically predisposed to some mental illness would this be considered "natural selection" and even if it was I'm glad you agree he doesn't deserve to die, personally I think doesn't deserve any sympathy is harsh too.
Your right its a large leap from deserves no sympathy to deserves to die both are pretty harsh. If you don't feel any sympathy fine, but advocating in a discussion that he doesn't deserve any well its no where nears as bad as that other guy but its still way to harsh in my opinion. I'm not asking anyone to shed tears over this guy and its understandable that not everyone would care, people you don't know die everyday and you feel this guys was inevitable, I understand that but advocating he doesn't deserve anyone to care is still to harsh IMO
Firstly this guy wasn't so stupid, he couldn't seek food shelter sleep water etc. He lived 28 years and ss we agreed earlier something must have went wrong. I cannot imagine a healthy personally mentally doing this. You don't need a injury to the head to have extraordinary circumstances in your life to unbalance you mentally and we don't know what happened. Now only if he was genetically predisposed to some mental illness would this be considered "natural selection" and even if it was I'm glad you agree he doesn't deserve to die, personally I think doesn't deserve any sympathy is harsh too. Your right its a large leap from deserves no sympathy to deserves to die both are pretty harsh. If you don't feel any sympathy fine, but advocating in a discussion that he doesn't deserve any well its no where nears as bad as that other guy but its still way to harsh in my opinion. I'm not asking anyone to shed tears over this guy and its understandable that not everyone would care, people you don't know die everyday and you feel this guys was inevitable, I understand that but advocating he doesn't deserve anyone to care is still to harsh IMO
If hre could play a video game his higher brain functions were intact and he could seek nourishment. He chose not to. This wasn't a rat in a cocaine trial.Compulsions that superscedes unrelated basic physical drives are almost unheard of.
Thousands of people die every day through no fault of their own. I don't know them or of them either. I feel no sympathy for them. If I did I would spend my entire life grieving until it killed me. There's nothing harsh about that. I just don't pretend I feel an emotion for them I don't. That's merely being human. Again I'm not advocating no one should care. I'm saying people who have no more connection that having the same hobby should not feel they must care. Mental illness isn't the only criteria for natural selection either. Simple stupidity serves just as well.
Well we now seem to be in agreement here on the most important issue. That is no one should feel they must care nor should we adovocate no one shouldn't care by saying things like "deserves no sympathy" and argueing why they they think that is.
I'm aware mental illness isn't the only criteria but its the most likely one, a hell of a lot more likely than simple stupidity given basic knowledge about this guy. I mean I said "I don't care if he's dumber than a chimp" even though its clear a chimp would never graduate from anything or have a trade and there are much dumber animals than chimps that would still not do this. So I think sanity is the most likely cause. Now as for losing your sanity not equalling someone doing cocaine, I think losing your sanity is extremely more powerful than being a coke addict.
EDIT furthermore you cannot just choose to lose your sanity.
The OP's post is interesting. Some commentators complain about her "wall of text", whilst others complain about her lack of academic rigour. Of course, if she had been rigorous, then the post would have been considerably longer - so these two demands contradict eachother. These two demands contradict one another only when iterated by the same person. For my part, I love skyscraper-sized walls of text, so there's no contradiction here.
Whilst the author appears to clearly agree with the title of her essay, her post falls a long way short of actually establishing it to be true. Neither rhetorical questions or quotes from other threads prove anything, so all her thread really achieves is to pose the question, rather than supply an answer. And her question isn't even original - a simple search of "Opium MMO" on google returns a large number of results, some several years old.
The author seems to come from a left wing intellectual tradition, of a type that's common in many english, history and economics departments of universities The first two I agree with, but economics? The Chicago School notwithstanding, I don't think that much of what is being taught in economics is particularly left-wing, considering they more or less advocate the free market (with varying levels of government intervention), unless Keynesianism is being regarded as lefty stuff these days. , but is seldom seen anywhere else I'd go further and say that the left outside of academia is completely different from it, and probably in some cases incompatible to it.. Her point could be re-phrased as "There should be more lefty intellectuals like me. Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad". If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything. Could her attack be likened to the attacks some religious groups make on video games? Gaming competes with both god and socialism for the attention of young people, and hence, at some level, all 3 are opposed to each-other. In many cases, according to critics of gaming (read: Jack Thompson), games would be fine if their morality matched religious tenets. That's why those guys try to harness it (as they've done with "Christian rock") to promote their cause, so we can't really be talking about competition. As for socialism, well, I have no idea where that came from. Academic leftism is for all purposes impractical; it denounces, but can never implement. I can't see such "socialism" competing with anything.
Whilst many (not all) people would agree that real opiates are bad for a person, does it necessarily follow that metaphorical opiates are also bad? For the last 15 years, economies throughout the west have been largely successful. The vast majority of people have shown little interest in politics, and many would far rather go out and party than attend a rally. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming?
Hedonism has ruled, and gaming has been only a part of this wider movement. Now that we have entered an economic downturn, I would expect far more young people to become heavily politicised, regardless of the presence of MMOs. As I wrote above, this would go against all the promotion for libertarian ideals espoused by some members of these boards; and if I may be allowed a political aside, it was precisely laissez-faire capitalism which led to the current economic crisis. So in this case, young players weren't being politicized by the economic downturn; they already were, and ironically threw their support behind the causes of the mess we're now going through. So, it seems to me, that the OP is attacking the symptom (gaming) rather than the cause (affluence). If the cause is "affluence" and the symptom, "gaming", it would go against the entire "opium of the masses" thing. Implied in the phrase is a sense of escapism from one's plight -- and "affluence" isn't a plight (unless you're a lawsuit magnet); Marxism in fact would have you squarely on the side of the exploiters, not the exploited. If the cause is other than monetary, for example psychological (such as inability to communicate in real life), then "opium of the masses" could still be used, but it would be hollowed of its traditional Marxist sense.
She also discusses the treadmill style of many games - the way the gamer is continually chasing the next level, or the next epic. She's absolutely right to describe this as a hollow thing. However, she's not particularly profound - in that many people who actually play MMOs would completely agree with her. Jonathan Blow, as someone else pointed out, made those exact same points regarding World of Warcraft. It can pretty much be boiled down to the journey mattering as much as the destination -- the destination must exist (which is why everybody gets frustrated over "endgame"), but at the same time the journey can't be designed to make it as difficult to reach as possible (the level treadmill). But that's only a part of why people play. An amateur footballer may mesasure his success by how many games he has won, or how many trophies are in his club's cabinet. But he plays because he likes football, and he'd keep playing even if his team was relegated. Similarly, MMO players play because they like some aspect of the game - whether it be raiding, PvP, socialising, exploring or even grinding. The trophies (levels, epics) are just symbols of progress, rather than the reason for playing. You'd have to address the question of those doing the same WoW raid every night in the hope of getting that missing piece of armor. Most successful guilds I've seen have had this attitude, whilst loot whore guilds seldom last more than a few months.
The most interesting remaining question isn't whether MMOs are an opiate for the masses (they are), or whether metaphorical opiates are a bad thing (debatable), but whether MMOs are a more effective opiate than many of the alternatives, such as TV or religion. The amount of time many people spend on MMOs is enormous, and it can prevent other forms of social interaction from taking place. Whilst a TV watcher can always turn on the video recorder if his friends invite him out for the evening, an MMO player may find it very difficult to tell 20 or more other raiders that he can't play tonight because his real life friends want to invite him out at short notice. People have been kicked from guilds for less... So do MMOs interefere with the formation of many low level social bonds with neighbours - things that are necessary pre-requisites for any political involvement? Probably. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve. Do they remove an entire class of young people (geeks, gamers) from politics entirely, resulting in that class being further marginalised? It's an interesting question, and if you fancy yourself a sociologist, you could go out and compare MMO playing figures in political strongholds with bellwether ridings. Did the sort of person who becomes a typical MMO player ever have any political representation to lose?
Guess I've rambled and asked rhetorical questions much like the OP. But I can't help thinking about an event in my guild a while back. A Lebanese member of the guild found out another player was from Israel. I wasn't online when it happened, but apparently guild chat became quite heated. Eventually things were sorted out, and both players remained in the guild, and continued to play alongside eachother in raids. So maybe there's hope!
I got to about the middle of page 3, read some of Bernician's replies (and realized just how seriously some were taking this crap), then realized what was so grossly wrong about the OP's post as I read it, and what some had touched on in their replies about it lacking any feeling, or "color".
I simply google'd "opium of the masses MMO", and that was one of the first links to pop up. I immediately stopped bothering with this thread right then and there, and didn't even bother to discover if more of the "OP's post" was little more than cut and paste garbage all mish-mashed together to make some strange point. It's important to note; the OP clearly hasn't responded here thus far, has formerly made inflammatory open-ended posts, and has yet again successfully perpetrated only one thing....
Awesome troll.
Come on folks, really. If you're going to take the time to get emotionally and intellectually invested in such a thread, take a moment to consider it might not even be worth your credence. Some of you folks seem entirely too smart to be getting drawn in by such an absurd thing. The thread's title alone should be enough to turn most away as little more than nonsense. A gaming sub-genre which caters to such a small percentage can in no way be considered an "opium of the masses". Ugh, absurdity.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
They can say whatever they want about people who want to have a good time. They think we "Only think about MMO's?" Let them try and prove that to me face to face, and I will prove back that I can think strongly about other things like where and how to land my fist in their face.
This is a clear science that is going on. They are trying to study gamers and MMORPG players alike in the same way they test lab-rats, and monkeys. More power to them. They can do what they want, but when they start pointing fingers by categorizing us as (1 specific type of human). Then they are going overboard. They may as well categorize themselves. (Label happy assholes) Rather than label me as a 1-track idiot who lives for MMO's.
I
Go to the gym
ATV
Paintball
Hang out
Go to clubs
Love vacations
Boxing
Swimming
Playing with sharp weapons safely somehow.
Cruising down red light district when all the lights show green. (No pun intended)
Watching rediculously redundent politics till I die of excitement. (Sarcasm off)
Lots more.
Lets face it folks, their is no absolute in anything, you can be into politics all you want, you aren't going to win any kind of end all argument over life. But ya do a great job at pissing alot of people off using very subjective words. It's not like just because we understands MMORPG's, we all of a sudden don't understand our industry and politics in which we are made up of and governed by. "We are a part of it after all". I realize the importance of politics, and not getting killed by invaders from a hostile country. I do. But I also understand that taking a little time to enjoy my favorite fps, or mmorpg when I have time to kill is very enjoyable.
Originally posted by Antipathy 1 Her point could be re-phrased as "There should be more lefty intellectuals like me. Warcraft results in fewer lefty intellectuals, hence Warcraft is bad". If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything. 2 Whilst many (not all) people would agree that real opiates are bad for a person, does it necessarily follow that metaphorical opiates are also bad? For the last 15 years, economies throughout the west have been largely successful. The vast majority of people have shown little interest in politics, and many would far rather go out and party than attend a rally. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming 3 The most interesting remaining question isn't whether MMOs are an opiate for the masses (they are), or whether metaphorical opiates are a bad thing (debatable), but whether MMOs are a more effective opiate than many of the alternatives, such as TV or religion. The amount of time many people spend on MMOs is enormous, and it can prevent other forms of social interaction from taking place. Whilst a TV watcher can always turn on the video recorder if his friends invite him out for the evening, an MMO player may find it very difficult to tell 20 or more other raiders that he can't play tonight because his real life friends want to invite him out at short notice. People have been kicked from guilds for less... So do MMOs interefere with the formation of many low level social bonds with neighbours - things that are necessary pre-requisites for any political involvement? Probably. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
I don't want to respond to everything you discussed. For the most part the discussion seemed reasonable and well thought out and I didn't feel compelled to add anything to it, so I've chopped out entire paragraphs and labelled the parts I wanted to comment on.
1. "If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything."
I'm no intellectual even though I'm lean left. I personally hate how all some ones views are narrowed down to left and right but anyway.
What you said is completely without basis, untrue, unfair and doesn't make sense. Firstly there are an enormous amount of "lefty intellectuals" who have fought to get in a position to actually change things and even more who have tried but failed. Secondly being in "a state of perpetual preachiness" is no motivation within itself, the whole driving force behind preaching is to persuade. So at best your generalising your experience with people you consider "lefty intellectuals" and making broader assumptions as to there motivation for preaching that are logically flawed. No one gets respect from the masses by being "in a state of perpetual preachiness" when they aren't constantly telling the masses things they want to hear so its hadly a "mountaintop". Even if your generalisation and consequent assumptions are slightly accurate in anyway its more of "anthill" with there peers.
2. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming.
I don't think the question about "who should've been next american president of the US" needs to be addressed at all but it deffinetely needs to be addressed before you start making assumptions as to the answer of the question you say "needs to be addressed". Again your making assumptions based on generalizations. Your assuming because a few avatars seemingly supported Ron paual and Bob Barr that the majority feel the same way. Forget the fact that the US elections are of international interest and these boards are international and your poll would be less likely to have those canidaites winning as a result (to my knowledge as a non US citizen Pauil an Barr aren't known globally like Clinton, Obama and McCain.) Lets just try to get a half way accurate percentage of people who are interested in politics and play MMO's rather than making assumptions based on generalizations.
3. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
This time instead of a assumption based on a generalization your doing vice-versa making a generalization based on an assumption. I don't understand how you could come to that conclussion. Now forgetting that its a generalization based on an assumption I personally think its either a misleading or misunderstanding about what a libertarian stands for. Yes they stand for rights of idviduals but that in no way means its only there own idvidual rights and they care nothing for there neighbors.
I got to about the middle of page 3, read some of Bernician's replies (and realized just how seriously some were taking this crap), then realized what was so grossly wrong about the OP's post as I read it, and what some had touched on in their replies about it lacking any feeling, or "color".
I simply google'd "opium of the masses MMO", and that was one of the first links to pop up. I immediately stopped bothering with this thread right then and there, and didn't even bother to discover if more of the "OP's post" was little more than cut and paste garbage all mish-mashed together to make some strange point. It's important to note; the OP clearly hasn't responded here thus far, has formerly made inflammatory open-ended posts, and has yet again successfully perpetrated only one thing....
It's pretty much clear as day that it's not OP~his/her own words. But it's an interesting topic non the less. If people get offended by it however, maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification. Anyways I gave my 5cents about the article, but I don't get why people are so frustrated over it.
This is one of the LEAST serious topics I have seen in along while as it deals with games.
Originally posted by denshing It's pretty much clear as day that it's not OP~his/her own words. But it's an interesting topic non the less. If people get offended by it however, maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification. Anyways I gave my 5cents about the article, but I don't get why people are so frustrated over it. This is one of the LEAST serious topics I have seen in along while as it deals with games.
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
As simplistic the following may sound it's a personal thruth and opinion ; discussing politics or to be more precise discussing political hued posts or threads, tends to become counterproductive. Why? Hell i can't intonate as i want, what i have to is bold them , and the most important , hey even though i disagree with some of you or more to the practical aporach i agree with some bits of what some say , at the end i can't buy some of you a shot of whatever you want to drink , even though i might disagree with your opinions. I am not saying that the forum discussions are wrong ; nope not at all....but it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!
P.S. yes i love shouting in political conversations and i love being shouted back and at the end drink some shots, hey i am not the tea and posh political conversation type. My view, my hype and thats it !
As simplistic the following may sound it's a personal thruth and opinion ; discussing politics or to be more precise discussing political hued posts or threads, tends to become counterproductive. Why? Hell i can't intonate as i want, what i have to is bold them , and the most important , hey even though i disagree with some of you or more to the practical aporach i agree with some bits of what some say , at the end i can't buy some of you a shot of whatever you want to drink , even though i might disagree with your opinions. I am not saying that the forum discussions are wrong ; nope not at all....but it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!
P.S. yes i love shouting in political conversations and i love being shouted back and at the end drink some shots, hey i am not the tea and posh political conversation type. My view, my hype and thats it !
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
Originally posted by denshing It's pretty much clear as day that it's not OP~his/her own words. But it's an interesting topic non the less. If people get offended by it however, maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification. Anyways I gave my 5cents about the article, but I don't get why people are so frustrated over it. This is one of the LEAST serious topics I have seen in along while as it deals with games.
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
Eh, my response was what it was - a simple statement that the original topic and overall point of the OP was moot and plagiarized, and not necessarily even his/her own thoughts. If you go look at the original post - not the discussion the topic has changed into (as I've read more of it now) - it's clear that the OP somehow is trying to designate MMOs as a contributor to problems in society as a whole, on a scale far larger than they currently are. It exaggerates an issue that in parts have meaning, but as a whole - in the way the OP has presented them - are ridiculous at best and serve only to boast the OP's intellectual prowess while coming off as condescending (how many of you, in all honesty, didn't have to look up solipsism? I didn't, wouldn't be embarrassed if I had - it's a rarely known term). Talk about designating one's self.
The original post was also annoying to read - all bold and many points mashed into single paragraphs without addressing a personal stance at all. Sure, say they were being objective and wanting others' input - where'd the OP disappear to, then? Sorry, I don't care for reading half a paragraph that begs one question, then bleeds into the next subject within the same paragraph, while answering itself, all while my eyes damn near cross trying to read it from the glaring, all-bold somewhat small white text on a dark background (even still, I read the whole thing).
Sorry for not jumping right into the discussion, but frankly this post didn't even know what it was trying to designate itself as while the author was trying to present themselves as some great philosopher and intellectual. If the OP was truly trying to have certain issues they were concerned with or interested in addressed, they could've intelligently formatted it in a better way, given it a less inflammatory subject, and participated in a discussion about their own original thoughts and concerns. This post failed at that, and while that could easily be looked beyond for the merits of the discussions that followed, I was merely turned off by the disingenuous manner of the OP, and that everyone kept referencing as a post that in a whole had some greater meaning.
My chronological peer from Greece, Patternizer, hit the proverbial nail on the head: "i can't intonate as i want... it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!". Yup, I don't know how much better I could say it myself. The OP was the most guilty one here for lacking any such emotion or "tonation" within their text. Points are easily made by bolding or underlining, but as I pointed out previously and as others have said already; this post lacked color. You can be objective and still show some connection with what you're trying to say, and the OP seriously failed at that, and horrifically so.
BTW, I have particularly strong feelings on this subject, as I've been gaming since '98 myself, albeit not in MMO's entirely. I've played in various stages of "casual" and "hardcore", and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of shrugging off friends or social events here and there to make the next raid or push my character further in free time. That said, this thread isn't the place to discuss such things, in my opinion. The tones of the OP seem like an attempt to demonize MMO gaming as a whole, while offering no stance of the author for responders to reply to. In fact, the post says outright that "I'm right, and you're wrong" then begs you to discuss without any responsibility towards the OP.
Again I say, nice trolling. A discussion with the OP this is not.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
*smiles* well we have to wait it out i suppose, I am giving the element of doubt to the OP , because in this very thread another poster noted that the OP is M.i.a atm due to a reason i dont care to comment on! Either way, yes i am from Greece i am loud and i take politics much into consideration , but hey i am Human most of all, not a machine that writes posts. On that note , I would love and Dare the OP to show all of us, Whatever she/he wants...Whatever she/he feels, but please this time OP make it personal !
Edit: Truly a failure to present any personal view from the OP soon(tm) will ,Personally make me revise a couple of things, not for the OP and his/her persona, that would be ridiculous. But as to if i ll personally ./bother again! My 2 copper coins....
Originally posted by denshing It's pretty much clear as day that it's not OP~his/her own words. But it's an interesting topic non the less. If people get offended by it however, maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification. Anyways I gave my 5cents about the article, but I don't get why people are so frustrated over it. This is one of the LEAST serious topics I have seen in along while as it deals with games.
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
Eh, my response was what it was - a simple statement that the original topic and overall point of the OP was moot and plagiarized, and not necessarily even his/her own thoughts. If you go look at the original post - not the discussion the topic has changed into (as I've read more of it now) - it's clear that the OP somehow is trying to designate MMOs as a contributor to problems in society as a whole, on a scale far larger than they currently are. It exaggerates an issue that in parts have meaning, but as a whole - in the way the OP has presented them - are ridiculous at best and serve only to boast the OP's intellectual prowess while coming off as condescending (how many of you, in all honesty, didn't have to look up solipsism? I didn't, wouldn't be embarrassed if I had - it's a rarely known term). Talk about designating one's self.
The original post was also annoying to read - all bold and many points mashed into single paragraphs without addressing a personal stance at all. Sure, say they were being objective and wanting others' input - where'd the OP disappear to, then? Sorry, I don't care for reading half a paragraph that begs one question, then bleeds into the next subject within the same paragraph, while answering itself, all while my eyes damn near cross trying to read it from the glaring, all-bold somewhat small white text on a dark background (even still, I read the whole thing).
Sorry for not jumping right into the discussion, but frankly this post didn't even know what it was trying to designate itself as while the author was trying to present themselves as some great philosopher and intellectual. If the OP was truly trying to have certain issues they were concerned with or interested in addressed, they could've intelligently formatted it in a better way, given it a less inflammatory subject, and participated in a discussion about their own original thoughts and concerns. This post failed at that, and while that could easily be looked beyond for the merits of the discussions that followed, I was merely turned off by the disingenuous manner of the OP, and that everyone kept referencing as a post that in a whole had some greater meaning.
My chronological peer from Greece, Patternizer, hit the proverbial nail on the head: "i can't intonate as i want... it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!". Yup, I don't know how much better I could say it myself. The OP was the most guilty one here for lacking any such emotion or "tonation" within their text. Points are easily made by bolding or underlining, but as I pointed out previously and as others have said already; this post lacked color. You can be objective and still show some connection with what you're trying to say, and the OP seriously failed at that, and horrifically so.
BTW, I have particularly strong feelings on this subject, as I've been gaming since '98 myself, albeit not in MMO's entirely. I've played in various stages of "casual" and "hardcore", and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of shrugging off friends or social events here and there to make the next raid or push my character further in free time. That said, this thread isn't the place to discuss such things, in my opinion. The tones of the OP seem like an attempt to demonize MMO gaming as a whole, while offering no stance of the author for responders to reply to. In fact, the post says outright that "I'm right, and you're wrong" then begs you to discuss without any responsibility towards the OP.
Again I say, nice trolling. A discussion with the OP this is not.
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer comments I've commented on them elsewhere.
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
4th post down on this page. BYW that should say your comments not patterns I fixed the typo in that thread.
As simplistic the following may sound it's a personal thruth and opinion ; discussing politics or to be more precise discussing political hued posts or threads, tends to become counterproductive. Why? Hell i can't intonate as i want, what i have to is bold them , and the most important , hey even though i disagree with some of you or more to the practical aporach i agree with some bits of what some say , at the end i can't buy some of you a shot of whatever you want to drink , even though i might disagree with your opinions. I am not saying that the forum discussions are wrong ; nope not at all....but it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!
P.S. yes i love shouting in political conversations and i love being shouted back and at the end drink some shots, hey i am not the tea and posh political conversation type. My view, my hype and thats it !
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
WTF this has anything to do with what i write? If you want to be talking politics with morality good for you. I dont CARE for politicians also. Morality BTW has a lot to do with emotions .... Look it up, now leave me be , bybye!
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
As simplistic the following may sound it's a personal thruth and opinion ; discussing politics or to be more precise discussing political hued posts or threads, tends to become counterproductive. Why? Hell i can't intonate as i want, what i have to is bold them , and the most important , hey even though i disagree with some of you or more to the practical aporach i agree with some bits of what some say , at the end i can't buy some of you a shot of whatever you want to drink , even though i might disagree with your opinions. I am not saying that the forum discussions are wrong ; nope not at all....but it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!
P.S. yes i love shouting in political conversations and i love being shouted back and at the end drink some shots, hey i am not the tea and posh political conversation type. My view, my hype and thats it !
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
WTF this has anything to do with what i write? If you want to be talking politics with morality good for you. I dont CARE for politicians also. Morality BTW has a lot to do with emotions .... Look it up, now leave me be , bybye!
Emotions are feelings, morality is what is right. What you feel, if your angry etc it isn't always best to act on it, in my opinion logica with some emotional considerations is far more important with morality.
As for people putting to much stock in there emotions they often miss the point !!!! and overreact. Sound familar?
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
Nope i won't!
I love overeacting than being a manupilated paperdoll.
And to a serious note : morality is what is right by the given society. Which morality you refer to? your personal? Then you should try and explain on these thinking , what is imoral to me! Now if you please.... Feeling bitter? that's a feeling i can respect!
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagrated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
I'm not a big fan of quote trains, either.
That said, this is the problem with such a discussion in text. For starters I didn't take your post - which I originally quoted - personally, but I did feel a certain necessity to clarify my point as I re-read and realized how easily it could be misconstrued (particularly within the context of your reply which I quoted). Second, while my post is clearly serious, I don't feel I'm being emotional in it at all. The only emotional bit was the nugget I tossed into the last paragraph for the purposes of making clear how I truly felt about the subject.
Oversensitive, perhaps. Emotional, not really. These are things both lost in the context of written responses on a forum, and unfortunately lead to misperceptions about one may or may not be saying. See why I quoted Patternizer?
Personally, I could easily take this for being "political satire" or an "exaggerated metaphor" if it weren't so grossly exaggerated followed by designating itself as being so proper and correct. It was ridiculous on the one hand, then dead serious on the other. Sorry for not making that clear enough sooner.
As a side note, I'm a big fan of proper grammar and spelling, and in personal experience I realize that this leads to someone perpetually taking what's being said in a very serious light. That being the case, it's unfortunate because I rather enjoyed thinking about and typing up my last response. It's definitely not something I'll lose sleep over, and I'm certainly not angry, upset, or planning to cry myself to sleep :P If anything, I was initially just a bit irritated at how something so ridiculous was being taken the way that it was - as some masterpiece of literature on the subject of MMO's impact on society as a whole. You're right - at best it's satire. I was originally just trying to make that clear through discrediting the author to save myself the time and trouble of explanation. Once again, I'll quickly point out that if the OP truly wanted to garner a discussion on the subject, he/she could've presented it in a fasion that would've been far more conducive to a real discussion, and I didn't see that as their intent.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
Nope i won't!
I love overeacting than being a manupilated paperdoll.
And to a serious note : morality is what is right by the given society. Which morality you refer to? your personal? Then you should try and explain on these thinking , what is imoral to me! Now if you please.... Feeling bitter? that's a feeling i can respect!
I take it when I started the sentence with "My personal truth and opinion" you din't understand I was talking about that?
and no I'm not bitter, I'm trying to understand you and act moraly which means (for me) I'm going to great lengths to put aside my anger at your snide remarks.
I dare Ozmono on this ( and cry me a river for my spelling/typos/grammar) ; You speak of morality your personal as i take it, then give the readers of the thread ; a solid review of the OP from your own morality prism. Not answering to valid or not valid posts of other people. Where you stand?
And just fyi I believe morality is a plain compendium of manifactured BS i am not going ever to abide to , As for the personal Ethiks ( Ethiki , greek word) that's a different thing. My ethiks atm being very sentimental based prompt me to start bashing your posts. Chess forget about chess this is MMORPG.com.
As for me I am irritated but not angry, Yes I shout, so what? Should i abide to savoir vivre, lol and Again lol, I am a loud person and i don't mind debating Loud!
P.S. if you ever come to Greece *smiles* remind me to buy you some Ouzo ! Be well!
Edit: I dont prompt or need you to understand me, that is far more intrusive than you meant it to be .... I am who i am mate, that's it , take it or leave it !
I dare Ozmono on this ( and cry me a river for my spelling/typos/grammar) ; You speak of morality your personal as i take it, then give the readers of the thread ; a solid review of the OP from your own morality prism. Not answering to valid or not valid posts of other people. Where you stand? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This thread became colorfull ; true , but not the OP, on which matter i stand as i stood earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And just fyi I believe morality is a plain compendium of manifactured BS i am not going ever to abide to , As for the personal Ethiks ( Ethiki , greek word) that's a different thing. My ethiks atm being very sentimental based prompt me to start bashing your posts. Chess forget about chess this is MMORPG.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for me I am irritated but not angry, Yes I shout, so what? Should i abide to savoir vivre, lol and Again lol, I am a loud person and i don't mind debating Loud! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. if you ever come to Greece *smiles* remind me to buy you some Ouzo ! Be well!
Edit: I dont prompt you to understand me, that is far more intrusive than you meant it to be .... I am who i am mate, that's it , take it or leave it !
"Edit: I dont prompt you to understand me, that is far more intrusive than you meant it to be .... I am who i am mate, that's it , take it or leave it !"
Firstly let me say I only try to understand you so my emotional response from what was irrating to the point of inciting anger within me to some of your remarks can be subdued (its hard to be angry at most people when you can understand where they are coming from) As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, I have bi-polar and I'm extremely emotional and moody so I have to take great lengths to control it. Thats just one of many methods I use to control my emotions. I didn't do it well enough in this scenerio because I too inflamed it further because of a emotional response.
"I dare Ozmono on this ( and cry me a river for my spelling/typos/grammar) ; You speak of morality your personal as i take it, then give the readers of the thread ; a solid review of the OP from your own morality prism. Not answering to valid or not valid posts of other people. Where you stand?"
First thing I have to address there is you seem to think that I care about spelling/typos/grammar mistakes, as someone who makes an abundance of them I could hardly have a dig at others. Okay as for my personal take on it from my own morality prism but its going to be a general review not a solid review. So here goes.
Okay firstly as I've said I think its exaggerated, I think its clearly a satire and not meant to be taken literally. The metaphor and the issues themselves within the post are almost always exaggerated. As I said I understand its provocative. That said I don't have a problem and don't think its wrong to do be provocative and exaggerate it when it is so over the top I thought it wouldn't be taken as seriously as it has been. That said I'm questioning that now. It does drive home some serious points that people may not like to have driven home in a satirical manner but I still don't consider it morally wrong because the intentions and doing so is a good thing. The intention is IMO to make people think about it rather than just consume, consume, consume even if it does cut them close to the bone and that is a good thing.
Okay I know thats hardly a solid review that you asked for, as I said its just my general view. If you want me to address something specific, elaborate on anything or notice any contridictions or questions than we will continue on my personal view.
Comments
Intresting post, OP.
I like opium for the masses anyways (well maybe not orginised religion, just wont make it for me) but stuff like beer, watching the simpsons and online gaming.
Dear antipathy, sorry for cropping your "wall of text" *smiles*. I kept and quoted the above for it's exactly what in contradiction to the OP makes me smile. Finally some real color into this thread ! Be well.
Also quoting some lyrics from Combichrist for everyone to enjoy while reading !
"Without emotions
Without feelings
Without love
Without hate
The rest is just a clock
Ticking… ticking… ticking… ticking… ticking…
Ticking… ticking… ticking… ticking…
The rest is just a clock
Ticking… "
Signature!!!...
As someone who has and does suffer with bi-polar,
oh before I continue, just so that other guy doesn't think I "deserve to die" because of natural selection. In my case its most probable that the physical trauma to head when I was hit with a pole caused it as that's when everything started going down hill. So its probably not a genetic disposition or "natural selection" in mycase if I happen to die as a result of something that could be attributed to it.
Anyway as I was saying as someone who has bi-polar, it not like you just know something is wrong and I need help. Even when things start getting bad and when you've lived your whole life considering yourself normal and being considered normal you'd be suprised just how bad things need to get before you even start thinking something may be wrong, its still not easy to just ask for help and definitly not justifying people defending others claiming they "deserved to die".
Inability to ask for help when needed, even to seek food, shelter, sleep, water, contraindicates survival, especially in this case.. That's natural selection. It's a large leap from deserves no sympathy to deserves to die. I don't advocate executing people who play video games too much. I do say if you're too stupid to move out of your own stink to grab a soda I'm not going to shed crocodile tears over your passing. His death wasn't the result of an external factor. He didn't have a head injury and video games didn't kill him either.
Firstly this guy wasn't so stupid, he couldn't seek food shelter sleep water etc. He lived 28 years and ss we agreed earlier something must have went wrong. I cannot imagine a healthy personally mentally doing this. You don't need a injury to the head to have extraordinary circumstances in your life to unbalance you mentally and we don't know what happened. Now only if he was genetically predisposed to some mental illness would this be considered "natural selection" and even if it was I'm glad you agree he doesn't deserve to die, personally I think doesn't deserve any sympathy is harsh too.
Your right its a large leap from deserves no sympathy to deserves to die both are pretty harsh. If you don't feel any sympathy fine, but advocating in a discussion that he doesn't deserve any well its no where nears as bad as that other guy but its still way to harsh in my opinion. I'm not asking anyone to shed tears over this guy and its understandable that not everyone would care, people you don't know die everyday and you feel this guys was inevitable, I understand that but advocating he doesn't deserve anyone to care is still to harsh IMO
If hre could play a video game his higher brain functions were intact and he could seek nourishment. He chose not to. This wasn't a rat in a cocaine trial.Compulsions that superscedes unrelated basic physical drives are almost unheard of.
Thousands of people die every day through no fault of their own. I don't know them or of them either. I feel no sympathy for them. If I did I would spend my entire life grieving until it killed me. There's nothing harsh about that. I just don't pretend I feel an emotion for them I don't. That's merely being human. Again I'm not advocating no one should care. I'm saying people who have no more connection that having the same hobby should not feel they must care. Mental illness isn't the only criteria for natural selection either. Simple stupidity serves just as well.
Well we now seem to be in agreement here on the most important issue. That is no one should feel they must care nor should we adovocate no one shouldn't care by saying things like "deserves no sympathy" and argueing why they they think that is.
I'm aware mental illness isn't the only criteria but its the most likely one, a hell of a lot more likely than simple stupidity given basic knowledge about this guy. I mean I said "I don't care if he's dumber than a chimp" even though its clear a chimp would never graduate from anything or have a trade and there are much dumber animals than chimps that would still not do this. So I think sanity is the most likely cause. Now as for losing your sanity not equalling someone doing cocaine, I think losing your sanity is extremely more powerful than being a coke addict.
EDIT furthermore you cannot just choose to lose your sanity.
I got to about the middle of page 3, read some of Bernician's replies (and realized just how seriously some were taking this crap), then realized what was so grossly wrong about the OP's post as I read it, and what some had touched on in their replies about it lacking any feeling, or "color".
The OP's thoughts are clearly not all their own.
tobolds.blogspot.com/2008/01/online-games-called-spiritual-opium.html
I simply google'd "opium of the masses MMO", and that was one of the first links to pop up. I immediately stopped bothering with this thread right then and there, and didn't even bother to discover if more of the "OP's post" was little more than cut and paste garbage all mish-mashed together to make some strange point. It's important to note; the OP clearly hasn't responded here thus far, has formerly made inflammatory open-ended posts, and has yet again successfully perpetrated only one thing....
Awesome troll.
Come on folks, really. If you're going to take the time to get emotionally and intellectually invested in such a thread, take a moment to consider it might not even be worth your credence. Some of you folks seem entirely too smart to be getting drawn in by such an absurd thing. The thread's title alone should be enough to turn most away as little more than nonsense. A gaming sub-genre which caters to such a small percentage can in no way be considered an "opium of the masses". Ugh, absurdity.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
They can say whatever they want about people who want to have a good time. They think we "Only think about MMO's?" Let them try and prove that to me face to face, and I will prove back that I can think strongly about other things like where and how to land my fist in their face.
This is a clear science that is going on. They are trying to study gamers and MMORPG players alike in the same way they test lab-rats, and monkeys. More power to them. They can do what they want, but when they start pointing fingers by categorizing us as (1 specific type of human). Then they are going overboard. They may as well categorize themselves. (Label happy assholes) Rather than label me as a 1-track idiot who lives for MMO's.
I
Go to the gym
ATV
Paintball
Hang out
Go to clubs
Love vacations
Boxing
Swimming
Playing with sharp weapons safely somehow.
Cruising down red light district when all the lights show green. (No pun intended)
Watching rediculously redundent politics till I die of excitement. (Sarcasm off)
Lots more.
Lets face it folks, their is no absolute in anything, you can be into politics all you want, you aren't going to win any kind of end all argument over life. But ya do a great job at pissing alot of people off using very subjective words. It's not like just because we understands MMORPG's, we all of a sudden don't understand our industry and politics in which we are made up of and governed by. "We are a part of it after all". I realize the importance of politics, and not getting killed by invaders from a hostile country. I do. But I also understand that taking a little time to enjoy my favorite fps, or mmorpg when I have time to kill is very enjoyable.
I don't want to respond to everything you discussed. For the most part the discussion seemed reasonable and well thought out and I didn't feel compelled to add anything to it, so I've chopped out entire paragraphs and labelled the parts I wanted to comment on.
1. "If I know anything about lefty intellectuals, they don't want more lefty intellectuals, since the mountaintop would just get too crowded to their liking. Much better to be in a state of perpetual preachiness than in an actual position to change anything."
I'm no intellectual even though I'm lean left. I personally hate how all some ones views are narrowed down to left and right but anyway.
What you said is completely without basis, untrue, unfair and doesn't make sense. Firstly there are an enormous amount of "lefty intellectuals" who have fought to get in a position to actually change things and even more who have tried but failed. Secondly being in "a state of perpetual preachiness" is no motivation within itself, the whole driving force behind preaching is to persuade. So at best your generalising your experience with people you consider "lefty intellectuals" and making broader assumptions as to there motivation for preaching that are logically flawed. No one gets respect from the masses by being "in a state of perpetual preachiness" when they aren't constantly telling the masses things they want to hear so its hadly a "mountaintop". Even if your generalisation and consequent assumptions are slightly accurate in anyway its more of "anthill" with there peers.
2. There is one question here that needs to be addressed: If you polled these boards as to who should have been next president of the US, the lead contender would have been Ron Paul, then Bob Barr (as demonstrated by all those avatars some months ago). Why is that? MMO gamers are politicized, but why do they vote the way they do? Do they play MMO's because it is a fictional implementation of their political beliefs? Or, conversely, are their political beliefs shaped by their MMO gaming.
I don't think the question about "who should've been next american president of the US" needs to be addressed at all but it deffinetely needs to be addressed before you start making assumptions as to the answer of the question you say "needs to be addressed". Again your making assumptions based on generalizations. Your assuming because a few avatars seemingly supported Ron paual and Bob Barr that the majority feel the same way. Forget the fact that the US elections are of international interest and these boards are international and your poll would be less likely to have those canidaites winning as a result (to my knowledge as a non US citizen Pauil an Barr aren't known globally like Clinton, Obama and McCain.) Lets just try to get a half way accurate percentage of people who are interested in politics and play MMO's rather than making assumptions based on generalizations.
3. And this is probably where this libertarian infatuation comes from. Me, myself and I. Let the neighbour starve.
This time instead of a assumption based on a generalization your doing vice-versa making a generalization based on an assumption. I don't understand how you could come to that conclussion. Now forgetting that its a generalization based on an assumption I personally think its either a misleading or misunderstanding about what a libertarian stands for. Yes they stand for rights of idviduals but that in no way means its only there own idvidual rights and they care nothing for there neighbors.
It's pretty much clear as day that it's not OP~his/her own words. But it's an interesting topic non the less. If people get offended by it however, maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification. Anyways I gave my 5cents about the article, but I don't get why people are so frustrated over it.
This is one of the LEAST serious topics I have seen in along while as it deals with games.
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
As simplistic the following may sound it's a personal thruth and opinion ; discussing politics or to be more precise discussing political hued posts or threads, tends to become counterproductive. Why? Hell i can't intonate as i want, what i have to is bold them , and the most important , hey even though i disagree with some of you or more to the practical aporach i agree with some bits of what some say , at the end i can't buy some of you a shot of whatever you want to drink , even though i might disagree with your opinions. I am not saying that the forum discussions are wrong ; nope not at all....but it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!
P.S. yes i love shouting in political conversations and i love being shouted back and at the end drink some shots, hey i am not the tea and posh political conversation type. My view, my hype and thats it !
Signature!!!...
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
Eh, my response was what it was - a simple statement that the original topic and overall point of the OP was moot and plagiarized, and not necessarily even his/her own thoughts. If you go look at the original post - not the discussion the topic has changed into (as I've read more of it now) - it's clear that the OP somehow is trying to designate MMOs as a contributor to problems in society as a whole, on a scale far larger than they currently are. It exaggerates an issue that in parts have meaning, but as a whole - in the way the OP has presented them - are ridiculous at best and serve only to boast the OP's intellectual prowess while coming off as condescending (how many of you, in all honesty, didn't have to look up solipsism? I didn't, wouldn't be embarrassed if I had - it's a rarely known term). Talk about designating one's self.
The original post was also annoying to read - all bold and many points mashed into single paragraphs without addressing a personal stance at all. Sure, say they were being objective and wanting others' input - where'd the OP disappear to, then? Sorry, I don't care for reading half a paragraph that begs one question, then bleeds into the next subject within the same paragraph, while answering itself, all while my eyes damn near cross trying to read it from the glaring, all-bold somewhat small white text on a dark background (even still, I read the whole thing).
Sorry for not jumping right into the discussion, but frankly this post didn't even know what it was trying to designate itself as while the author was trying to present themselves as some great philosopher and intellectual. If the OP was truly trying to have certain issues they were concerned with or interested in addressed, they could've intelligently formatted it in a better way, given it a less inflammatory subject, and participated in a discussion about their own original thoughts and concerns. This post failed at that, and while that could easily be looked beyond for the merits of the discussions that followed, I was merely turned off by the disingenuous manner of the OP, and that everyone kept referencing as a post that in a whole had some greater meaning.
My chronological peer from Greece, Patternizer, hit the proverbial nail on the head: "i can't intonate as i want... it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!". Yup, I don't know how much better I could say it myself. The OP was the most guilty one here for lacking any such emotion or "tonation" within their text. Points are easily made by bolding or underlining, but as I pointed out previously and as others have said already; this post lacked color. You can be objective and still show some connection with what you're trying to say, and the OP seriously failed at that, and horrifically so.
BTW, I have particularly strong feelings on this subject, as I've been gaming since '98 myself, albeit not in MMO's entirely. I've played in various stages of "casual" and "hardcore", and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of shrugging off friends or social events here and there to make the next raid or push my character further in free time. That said, this thread isn't the place to discuss such things, in my opinion. The tones of the OP seem like an attempt to demonize MMO gaming as a whole, while offering no stance of the author for responders to reply to. In fact, the post says outright that "I'm right, and you're wrong" then begs you to discuss without any responsibility towards the OP.
Again I say, nice trolling. A discussion with the OP this is not.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
*smiles* well we have to wait it out i suppose, I am giving the element of doubt to the OP , because in this very thread another poster noted that the OP is M.i.a atm due to a reason i dont care to comment on! Either way, yes i am from Greece i am loud and i take politics much into consideration , but hey i am Human most of all, not a machine that writes posts. On that note , I would love and Dare the OP to show all of us, Whatever she/he wants...Whatever she/he feels, but please this time OP make it personal !
Edit: Truly a failure to present any personal view from the OP soon(tm) will ,Personally make me revise a couple of things, not for the OP and his/her persona, that would be ridiculous. But as to if i ll personally ./bother again! My 2 copper coins....
Signature!!!...
I read it and I thought it all came together well. It was an exaggerated metaphor that didn't pull many punches and it was posted for an audience that the topic is specifically mentioning in a negative light. For that reason it was always going to provoke a discussion and I applaud the OP for doing it. Unfortunately judging by some of the post in response, it didn't always provoke much thought and alot of people didn't even look at themselves but just came up with silly ways of trying to shoot the OP down. As you said it does raise the question that "maybe they really do fit into that mmorpg player category that the article has labeled and narrow minded and insta gratification"
Eh, my response was what it was - a simple statement that the original topic and overall point of the OP was moot and plagiarized, and not necessarily even his/her own thoughts. If you go look at the original post - not the discussion the topic has changed into (as I've read more of it now) - it's clear that the OP somehow is trying to designate MMOs as a contributor to problems in society as a whole, on a scale far larger than they currently are. It exaggerates an issue that in parts have meaning, but as a whole - in the way the OP has presented them - are ridiculous at best and serve only to boast the OP's intellectual prowess while coming off as condescending (how many of you, in all honesty, didn't have to look up solipsism? I didn't, wouldn't be embarrassed if I had - it's a rarely known term). Talk about designating one's self.
The original post was also annoying to read - all bold and many points mashed into single paragraphs without addressing a personal stance at all. Sure, say they were being objective and wanting others' input - where'd the OP disappear to, then? Sorry, I don't care for reading half a paragraph that begs one question, then bleeds into the next subject within the same paragraph, while answering itself, all while my eyes damn near cross trying to read it from the glaring, all-bold somewhat small white text on a dark background (even still, I read the whole thing).
Sorry for not jumping right into the discussion, but frankly this post didn't even know what it was trying to designate itself as while the author was trying to present themselves as some great philosopher and intellectual. If the OP was truly trying to have certain issues they were concerned with or interested in addressed, they could've intelligently formatted it in a better way, given it a less inflammatory subject, and participated in a discussion about their own original thoughts and concerns. This post failed at that, and while that could easily be looked beyond for the merits of the discussions that followed, I was merely turned off by the disingenuous manner of the OP, and that everyone kept referencing as a post that in a whole had some greater meaning.
My chronological peer from Greece, Patternizer, hit the proverbial nail on the head: "i can't intonate as i want... it tends to become emotionally sterile, on such a personal subject as politics!". Yup, I don't know how much better I could say it myself. The OP was the most guilty one here for lacking any such emotion or "tonation" within their text. Points are easily made by bolding or underlining, but as I pointed out previously and as others have said already; this post lacked color. You can be objective and still show some connection with what you're trying to say, and the OP seriously failed at that, and horrifically so.
BTW, I have particularly strong feelings on this subject, as I've been gaming since '98 myself, albeit not in MMO's entirely. I've played in various stages of "casual" and "hardcore", and I'm just as guilty as the next guy of shrugging off friends or social events here and there to make the next raid or push my character further in free time. That said, this thread isn't the place to discuss such things, in my opinion. The tones of the OP seem like an attempt to demonize MMO gaming as a whole, while offering no stance of the author for responders to reply to. In fact, the post says outright that "I'm right, and you're wrong" then begs you to discuss without any responsibility towards the OP.
Again I say, nice trolling. A discussion with the OP this is not.
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer comments I've commented on them elsewhere.
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Signature!!!...
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
4th post down on this page. BYW that should say your comments not patterns
I fixed the typo in that thread.
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
WTF this has anything to do with what i write? If you want to be talking politics with morality good for you. I dont CARE for politicians also. Morality BTW has a lot to do with emotions .... Look it up, now leave me be , bybye!
Signature!!!...
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
My personal truth and opinion considering morality has a huge place in politics and considering emotions a lesser place in morality but having a political discussion that is emotionally lacking isn't that bad a thing at all. Politics that play to peoples emotions are to often playing on and with them. On the other hand politics that is devoid of certain emotional considerations is often brutally damaging and unfair to some people but even for politics to get to that stage its normally exploits a different emotion to gather support. So if it were completely "emotionally sterile" than I would agree with you but I don't see this thread being emotionally sterile at all.
WTF this has anything to do with what i write? If you want to be talking politics with morality good for you. I dont CARE for politicians also. Morality BTW has a lot to do with emotions .... Look it up, now leave me be , bybye!
Emotions are feelings, morality is what is right. What you feel, if your angry etc it isn't always best to act on it, in my opinion logica with some emotional considerations is far more important with morality.
As for people putting to much stock in there emotions they often miss the point !!!! and overreact. Sound familar?
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
Nope i won't!
I love overeacting than being a manupilated paperdoll.
And to a serious note : morality is what is right by the given society. Which morality you refer to? your personal? Then you should try and explain on these thinking , what is imoral to me! Now if you please.... Feeling bitter? that's a feeling i can respect!
Signature!!!...
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagrated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
I'm not a big fan of quote trains, either.
That said, this is the problem with such a discussion in text. For starters I didn't take your post - which I originally quoted - personally, but I did feel a certain necessity to clarify my point as I re-read and realized how easily it could be misconstrued (particularly within the context of your reply which I quoted). Second, while my post is clearly serious, I don't feel I'm being emotional in it at all. The only emotional bit was the nugget I tossed into the last paragraph for the purposes of making clear how I truly felt about the subject.
Oversensitive, perhaps. Emotional, not really. These are things both lost in the context of written responses on a forum, and unfortunately lead to misperceptions about one may or may not be saying. See why I quoted Patternizer?
Personally, I could easily take this for being "political satire" or an "exaggerated metaphor" if it weren't so grossly exaggerated followed by designating itself as being so proper and correct. It was ridiculous on the one hand, then dead serious on the other. Sorry for not making that clear enough sooner.
As a side note, I'm a big fan of proper grammar and spelling, and in personal experience I realize that this leads to someone perpetually taking what's being said in a very serious light. That being the case, it's unfortunate because I rather enjoyed thinking about and typing up my last response. It's definitely not something I'll lose sleep over, and I'm certainly not angry, upset, or planning to cry myself to sleep :P If anything, I was initially just a bit irritated at how something so ridiculous was being taken the way that it was - as some masterpiece of literature on the subject of MMO's impact on society as a whole. You're right - at best it's satire. I was originally just trying to make that clear through discrediting the author to save myself the time and trouble of explanation. Once again, I'll quickly point out that if the OP truly wanted to garner a discussion on the subject, he/she could've presented it in a fasion that would've been far more conducive to a real discussion, and I didn't see that as their intent.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
Well firstly alot of your post here seems to be directed at me singling you out as I'm the quote here. I purposely got rid of your quote from the post I responded to as I didn't want to do that. Infact I didn't mention a particular person at all for what I said. As for your opinions of the OP they are valid, the thing is though, like humor, art and in this case politics sometimes shock is most effective. Unfortunately, it is a little inconsiderate doing that but I think your being oversensitive and to emotional. If you see it for an exagarated methaphor, political satire that it is and treat it accordingly it shouldn't had as large an emotional impact.
As for it being "emotionally sterile" and patternizer patterns I've commented on them elsewhere.
Where? Show me!!!!
Edit: i read it ....ok , as usual you are wrong.... Politics is not morality , if you want to be a "Paladin" be so .... Politics are not feelings either. What you fail to see is that I don't play poker here, I am not a politicians . And as you know very well my Personal Opinion and model of how society works is very unique and personal , you know that all too well. Now reread my post and if you don't see the point in it, oh well too bad! see ya!
Reread it please.
I don't say politics is morality or emotions. I say morality IMO should be considered largely in politics and to a lesser degree emotions considered in morality.
I have no problem with you ending the conversation but atleast address the point of the post rather than twist my words.
Nope i won't!
I love overeacting than being a manupilated paperdoll.
And to a serious note : morality is what is right by the given society. Which morality you refer to? your personal? Then you should try and explain on these thinking , what is imoral to me! Now if you please.... Feeling bitter? that's a feeling i can respect!
I take it when I started the sentence with "My personal truth and opinion" you din't understand I was talking about that?
and no I'm not bitter, I'm trying to understand you and act moraly which means (for me) I'm going to great lengths to put aside my anger at your snide remarks.
I dare Ozmono on this ( and cry me a river for my spelling/typos/grammar) ; You speak of morality your personal as i take it, then give the readers of the thread ; a solid review of the OP from your own morality prism. Not answering to valid or not valid posts of other people. Where you stand?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread became colorfull ; true , but not the OP, on which matter i stand as i stood earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just fyi I believe morality is a plain compendium of manifactured BS i am not going ever to abide to , As for the personal Ethiks ( Ethiki , greek word) that's a different thing. My ethiks atm being very sentimental based prompt me to start bashing your posts. Chess forget about chess this is MMORPG.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for me I am irritated but not angry, Yes I shout, so what? Should i abide to savoir vivre, lol and Again lol, I am a loud person and i don't mind debating Loud!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. if you ever come to Greece *smiles* remind me to buy you some Ouzo ! Be well!
Edit: I dont prompt or need you to understand me, that is far more intrusive than you meant it to be .... I am who i am mate, that's it , take it or leave it !
Signature!!!...
"Edit: I dont prompt you to understand me, that is far more intrusive than you meant it to be .... I am who i am mate, that's it , take it or leave it !"
Firstly let me say I only try to understand you so my emotional response from what was irrating to the point of inciting anger within me to some of your remarks can be subdued (its hard to be angry at most people when you can understand where they are coming from) As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, I have bi-polar and I'm extremely emotional and moody so I have to take great lengths to control it. Thats just one of many methods I use to control my emotions. I didn't do it well enough in this scenerio because I too inflamed it further because of a emotional response.
"I dare Ozmono on this ( and cry me a river for my spelling/typos/grammar) ; You speak of morality your personal as i take it, then give the readers of the thread ; a solid review of the OP from your own morality prism. Not answering to valid or not valid posts of other people. Where you stand?"
First thing I have to address there is you seem to think that I care about spelling/typos/grammar mistakes, as someone who makes an abundance of them I could hardly have a dig at others. Okay as for my personal take on it from my own morality prism but its going to be a general review not a solid review. So here goes.
Okay firstly as I've said I think its exaggerated, I think its clearly a satire and not meant to be taken literally. The metaphor and the issues themselves within the post are almost always exaggerated. As I said I understand its provocative. That said I don't have a problem and don't think its wrong to do be provocative and exaggerate it when it is so over the top I thought it wouldn't be taken as seriously as it has been. That said I'm questioning that now. It does drive home some serious points that people may not like to have driven home in a satirical manner but I still don't consider it morally wrong because the intentions and doing so is a good thing. The intention is IMO to make people think about it rather than just consume, consume, consume even if it does cut them close to the bone and that is a good thing.
Okay I know thats hardly a solid review that you asked for, as I said its just my general view. If you want me to address something specific, elaborate on anything or notice any contridictions or questions than we will continue on my personal view.