Jump to content


Photo

Mass Effect: Andromeda is dead


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Atomica

Atomica

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 11:35 PM

Official update from the studio: https://www.masseffe...from-the-studio

 

Since the release of Mass Effect™: Andromeda, we’ve worked hard to address feedback from our community. From improving animations to expanding customization options, we looked to respond to your concerns, and build on what you loved.

With each patch, you let us know we were heading in the right direction, and we're grateful to everyone who joined us on this journey. We're proud of what we created, and we hope you enjoyed it as well.

Early in development, we decided to focus Mass Effect: Andromeda’s story on the Pathfinder, the exploration of the Andromeda galaxy, and the conflict with the Archon. The game was designed to further expand on the Pathfinder’s journey through this new galaxy with story-based APEX multiplayer missions and we will continue to tell stories in the Andromeda Galaxy through our upcoming comics and novels, including the fate of the quarian ark.

Our last update, 1.10, was the final update for Mass Effect: Andromeda. There are no planned future patches for single-player or in-game story content.

In the coming weeks, our multiplayer team will provide details of their ongoing support and upcoming content, including new multiplayer missions, character kits, and what’s in store for N7 Day.

We appreciate all the millions of people who came with us to the Andromeda galaxy. We hope to see you again in the Mass Effect universe.

The Mass Effect Andromeda Team

 

I don't know how many people here played ME:A, but if you haven't, this kinda suggests you shouldn't bother. In my case I got it on sale (fortunately), tried to play and gave up after a few hours just because of how dull the game is was and how apathetic the experience playing it was. I was tempted to try to force myself to finish it, but knowing that there are major plot points that will never be resolved, it's extremely unmotivating to try.


Oh my God! JC! A bomb!


#2 The Wheezing Geyser

The Wheezing Geyser

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:59 AM

I'd put that down to a failure in imagination.
Not to say that the idea isn't breathtaking.  "Humanity" seeking new outposts in the Andromeda Galaxy, having somehow already used up the Milky Way, and now building "settlements" to infinity, fighting alien bad guys.  A person doesn't even have to think, it's so banal.



#3 Outlooker

Outlooker

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 06:56 AM

The reason for this seems to be somewhat of the same category like  the ideological firing of that google anti-diversity manifesto-guy for stating truths that currently are seen as politically incorrect, taboos:

Companies, that is their top managers and owners, pretend to be politically left/liberal, because there are so many broken, defective people who adhere to this ideology: Gays, leftists, ugly fat feminists, transsexuals and others who are seen as inferior and disgusting by superior people - roughly known as the LGBT+ - crowd, but also others who are seen as inferior, like brown and black people.

These people know they are inferior, they know they are defective and ugly etc. - and this leads to them hating the superior people, a natural reaction.

The superior people tend to be white, smart, thin, healthy, rich and so on, so that is where their hatred and aggression is directed at.

Companies pretend to be sympathetic and allied to these people, who have mental and sexual defects, but partially still functional intellects - that means, they can still work. And they give them jobs, because those emotionally and

sexually defective people are willing to do a lot of work for very low wages, for they are thankful that someone "respects" them, "values" them - companies basically pay them not only on money, but in "respect" which costs no money, only a few seconds of lip service. Companies can bring their main source of cost, wages, down, by being able to pay those defective people low wages, which, by way of increased supply of cheap employees, brings down also the wages for regular employees.

It's basically exploitation of sexually/mentally defective people to bring down wages, and all it costs the management is to pretend to be progressive/anti-white/pro-diversity/feminist etc.

 

In ME:A, that strategy of the management backfired spectacularly:

Indeed, management boasted to investors/stock owners that the developing costs for this game were on a record low for the industry.

What they did not expect, however, was, that with so many developing staff chosen for cheap wages/pretended political causes, and not for competence only, the resulting product was inferior in quality in many aspects, like animation, story, gameplay. There was even a load of anti-white racism in the game (you could not choose a white player face, they had only blacks and browns) until game buyers/players protested and they later patched it in; a lot of work went into gay and lesbian romance and sex options, which seemed to divert resources from important areas of development further. Basically, the game backfired because the developers were, on average, cheaply-employed, but much too incompetent game developers, who also projected their hatred towards sexually/mentally healthy and racial seen as superior people (successful whites) in the game.

But the consumer base for a game as this are mostly white, heterosexual young and middle-aged men - who, not surprisingly, not only hated the game for its low technical quality in gameplay and presentation, but also for the underlying anti-white, anti-male story influences.

 

Voice actors: A self-hating male and his dominant, blue haired, anti-male, feminist partner:

protagonist.png

 

 

Facial setting before the outrage that lead to a patch (no white faces as presets available)

vrKISeR.jpg

 

 

 

All of the characters in the game lack really masculine and really feminine facial features - they all look more like transsexuals, lesbians etc.

6ptI2mi.jpg

bioware-bioware-bioware-is-proud-to-anno

 

(This is a different developer studio, but I think you can see the effect of the pretended political correctness in the employee structure - you may ponder on what is the cause of the generally fallen quality of games in the last decade.)

1457477958182.jpg

 

 

 

Here we have an example of a typical ME:A-developer and what might by the problem:

1479469982898.jpg

 

 

 

yfT2QB5.jpg


Edited by Outlooker, 20 August 2017 - 07:12 AM.

  • Bikerdude likes this
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"When outmatched... cheat." Batman

#4 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 07:12 AM

*Sigh* somebody's forgot to take meds, again. May I say that we don't need that kind of shit here?


  • HMart, RPGista, Abusimplea and 1 other like this

#5 Outlooker

Outlooker

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:09 AM

If you are interested in the issue, this short video shows quite a lot:

 

 

I have the hypothesis that with so many (less-than-top-attractive) females on board as developers, and by knowing some female psychology, that it is no mere coincidence that so many in-game female models are "uglied-down" versions of what male developers would have had modeled in or what a male audience of the game would liked to have seen:

Sexual competitiveness of females leads quite generally to them trying to lower the perceived beauty standard, especially driven by those females who are less beautiful (the most beautiful women have no incentive to do so) - this desire being a core motivation behind feminists (who happen to be mostly ugly women).

 

 

On a different note, I find it most amusingly ironic that the etymology of "Andromeda" is  "to be mindful of a man" from the Greek element ανηρ (aner) "man" (genitive ανδρος) combined with μεδομαι (medomai) "to be mindful of"...  ;) 


"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"When outmatched... cheat." Batman

#6 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:15 AM

This is Tony Tarantula's Sunday School of Cheap Psychology for the Frustrated kind of thinking. The reality is much more nuanced and complicated than that, and both TTLG and TDM forums' folks are too smart to get dragged to a level of discussion that low.


Edited by Judith, 20 August 2017 - 08:16 AM.

  • HMart, Abusimplea and CarltonTroisi like this

#7 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 36413 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 10:01 AM

*
POPULAR

giphy.gif


  • Judith, HMart, RPGista and 5 others like this

#8 jaxa

jaxa

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1235 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 11:24 AM

If you don't like a studio, don't buy their games. Then they may go the way of Looking Glass.



#9 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:24 PM

If you want to learn a bit more about troubled ME:A development, here's a decent article: http://kotaku.com/th...five-1795886428



#10 cabalistic

cabalistic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:17 PM

It's strange. Every single Bioware game I ever played was flawed in more than one way. And yet, all of them are among my favorite titles ever. Even though they always leave me feeling "this was great, but it could have been so much better", they resonate with me in a way very few other games do.

As flawed as Andromeda was, I still enjoyed it a lot. Shame they are abandoning it :(



#11 Atomica

Atomica

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 09:53 PM

Now I'm thinking it was a mistake to make this fucking topic. Apologies to all concerned.


Oh my God! JC! A bomb!


#12 Bikerdude

Bikerdude

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18643 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:56 AM

Its fine, its just a polarising topic - many of us loved the ME series before they fucked it up.



#13 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 02:17 AM

What is not fine though, is drawing conclusions based on simplistic, stereotypical, and sexist assumptions, related to author's look, background etc. Not only is it rude, it's also the least interesting part of talking about any work, whether it's literature, film, games, or other. It's even more pointless than the "what autor wanted to say" conversations.


Edited by Judith, 21 August 2017 - 02:18 AM.

  • HMart likes this

#14 CarltonTroisi

CarltonTroisi

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:59 PM

Now I'm thinking it was a mistake to make this fucking topic. Apologies to all concerned.

 

I have tried to imply before that this stuff (what you are referring to) should not be on this forum.  This is not an isolated incident, it keeps going, only worse each time.  All of it from a single source, at that.  "It's just the truth" is the explanation they give.  I think a far better explanation is some kind of compensatory egocentricity.



#15 HMart

HMart

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:35 AM

Outlooker your post is the most stupid garbage i ever read, your male bigotry and sexism is something that any sane person should avoid and ridicule. Bikerdude i'm very surprised you liked his post, one thing is to blame the game on bad decisions, like putting their faith on automatic facial and body animations, instead of hand animations, another is blame the game problems and by association society problems on reasons of sexism and bigotry, one critic leads to improvements on future development choices and better games, the other critic leads into civil unrest and violence, specially violence against woman.
 

Now I'm thinking it was a mistake to make this fucking topic. Apologies to all concerned.

 
No need to apologise you have no blame in the bigotry of others.


Edited by HMart, 22 August 2017 - 09:37 AM.

  • RPGista and CarltonTroisi like this

#16 stumpy

stumpy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1664 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:47 AM

It just reads as though Bioware had a really toxic working environment, that's no good for anything but to produce something really bad, playable but bad.



#17 Outlooker

Outlooker

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 11:10 PM

Now I am a bit torn:
One one hand I feel guilty for "disturbing the peace" here, which I absolutely did not intend in any way. I only wanted to point out my thoughts of the topic given.
Just like in any other human endeavor where people have to cooperate, like companies, such non-work-related exchange of ideas that lead to struggles and outrage 
can only hurt efficiency, concretely here the cooperation of all members to contribute to the mod, which probably should have highest priority. Based on this I think
I should just shut up, maybe even pretend to apologize, and leave it at that.
 
On the other hand I feel unjustly treated by mere ad-hominem arguments and attempts of what is known as social shaming, a common group-pressure attack:
 
 
"somebody's forgot to take meds, again"
That tries to imply I need medication and I would be mentally ill. I'm quite certain I am not (not based on my own opinion, but by the fact that I seem to be able to
function and achieve quite well in real life); there is no argument in there, only an ad-hominem attack.
 
" TTLG and TDM forums' folks are too smart to get dragged to a level of discussion that low."
This tries to imply I am stupid. I may be, but there is no argument in there, again only an ad-hominem attack; and social pressure by stating, in effect, that those who might think
alike are also stupid, so they better share the "correct" opinion.
 
"big pile of shit"
OK, this is an opinion, and we can of course all have any of those we want. Clearly, we do not all think alike, but nevertheless, I guess that there is an objective truth that can
be known on most matters, and I do not think I am right, I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong - but to make me change my thinking I would like to get actual arguments or evidence,
not mere opinions of others.
 
" its just a polarizing topic"
Yes, for some reason some people react with a surprisingly intense level of offense, even aggression, on mere mentioning of some facts or ideas, almost if one hit a nerve or
something like that. I do not intend to insult anybody or cause any harm, but I wonder if producing such high a degree of outrage is completely rational. At least I am shocked
quite a bit myself that I caused such a reaction.
 
"What is not fine though, is drawing conclusions based on simplistic, stereotypical, and sexist assumptions, related to author's look, background etc."
"Simplistic" - I just want to understand the world and people. My understanding is very limited, and I want to learn more about how things and people work. Therefore, I formulate
hypotheses, check them if they are supported by evidence; if yes, I keep them, if not, I throw them out and try a better one - I hope to get nearer to truth bit by bit this way.
I am sorry if you think this is too stupid an approach, and I would ask you to be so kind as to provide me with a superior one, if you think so.
 
"Not only is it rude"
I do not intend to be deliberately rude in any way, yet I have the suspicion that trying to honestly finding out the truth about things and people will quite often result in some hurt
feelings inevitably; but this is true for all sides of an argument (like myself, too, of course), because it is highly unlikely that one person or side of an argument would be completely
correct all of the time - everybody probably holds some false ideas and illusions on reality, of course this includes me, and  I am most ready to admit that I am wrong when I am presented
with evidence or an argument that makes sense to me.
The truth seems to have a tendency to hurt the feelings of all us humans a bit here and there, depending on what illusions we have. But I think it is always better to try to find and have
true, reality-based ideas about how things and people work instead of suffering from illusions.
 
 
"Outlooker your post is the most stupid garbage i ever read"
Yes, maybe. But you did not refute any argument, you just stated an opinion and produced an ad hominem. There is no substance in that statement, no argument. You basically only
informed me that you think I am stupid and you feel offended - that's all.
 
"your male bigotry"
I will not excuse myself for being a male, this seems, by all means, quite excessive.
"Bigotry" means "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself" -  therefore I am NOT a bigot, because I am very tolerant of other opinions, which, incidentally,
is obviously NOT true for you and some others because of the very (ad hominem) attacks on me right here in this thread.
 
 
"sexism is something that any sane person should avoid and ridicule"
I am a sexist, because I think that is right and proper, and I wonder why people see a problem with that.
Sex is sexist, alone this should end the argument.
Furthermore, it is obvious that men and women are in many respects very different, and therefore I think they should not be treated completely equal; for example, women are on average
physically weaker, and should not be forced to meet the same physical performance requirements, and this also results in unequal treatment in things like jobs were this is very relevant,
for example in combat soldiers or firefighters. Women own the monopoly on reproduction, because men cannot bear children, therefore another very relevant source of "sexism" is evident.
"Any sane person" again tries to imply that those who think otherwise suffer from a mental disease, which is - again - an ad hominem attack - or worse, if you had more power, because I fear
I would be already forcefully hospitalized... 
 
"Bikerdude i'm very surprised you liked his post"
You are completely free to be surprised, of course, but I feel there is something else happening here: I think you try to put social pressure on him, to sub-communicate or imply he did not behave as you want or
demand from him. He does not need to conform to your opinions, and he should not be subtly threatened with "exclusion from the tribe of those with the proper opinion", so to speak. I feel this is
some form of aggression, kind of like a teacher belittling her pupil for holding a wrong opinion.
 
 
"blame (...)  problems and by association society problems on reasons of sexism and bigotry (...) leads to (...) civil unrest and violence, specially violence against woman."
As pointed out above, I think there is nothing wrong with sexism.
Bigotry is not applicable, because neither I nor anybody else on my side of the argument tries to suppress other people's opinions, tries to make them out to be stupid or mentally ill
or immoral - but YOU do.
And while I am completely tolerant about other people freely voicing their opinions (free speech), I am very intolerant towards people who want to hinder other people to speak their
opinion freely (how unwelcome it may be), by manufacturing outrage and social shaming attempts trying to suppress opinions THEY don't like - what really happens here is that some kind of opinions are tried to be painted as unacceptable, as "evil" even, and by association, the very people who voice these opinions!
I often heard the term "hate-speech" being used accusatively  for some ideas and opinions that are not universally liked;
but this can be no argument to suppress free speech, because "hate" is a completely arbitrary and subjective concept - the same thing is loved and hated by some people, like Marmite,
and those who say they hate the taste of it ought not "tolerate" that their opinion on that matter be suppressed because it is "hate-speech" - the same is true for ideas and people even,
some people hate some other people, this is completely OK, it is their right, get over it. We do not live in a forced-harmony dictatorship, we are free to disagree and even hate.
 
 
"leads to civil unrest and violence"
So the fact that people have not all the same feelings and opinions and ideas on what is right and wrong and true and false leads to civil unrest and violence? This clearly is not so. 
What it leads to is competition in trying to find out which side is right, that may become violent, but absolutely does not need to become so - scientists of most fields and subjects
have opposing hypotheses and ideas, and they are clearly not causing "civil unrest and violence" - until recently, universities and research centers were not known for being battlegrounds, but
for doing experiments and research quite peacefully.
Is there a threat in there even, in "leads to civil unrest and violence" - are you trying to imply if other people do not hold YOUR exact opinion there will be blood? What are you trying to
say, that there will be a coup or revolution because other people hold ideas and opinions different from your own?
 
"specially violence against woman"
I cannot see why free speech and trying to find the truth would result in "violence against women", I think you make that up completely to further the purely emotional, manipulative pressure of your post-
mere rhetoric along the lines of "Oh, he is trying to hurt the poor, weak, innocent womenfolk which clearly makes him the bad guy and me the white knight in shining armor, see!"
 
"society problems" 
Just to point that out extra - society may have many a problem, but free speech is none of them, nor is telling the truth or what one thinks it is.
 
 

 

 

 
And to make me perhaps even more unpopular with some - here more opinions of mine I do hold, which are currently seen as offensive by some; but I do not care if I offend, I do not care about being unpopular with some people as long as I say what I think is right and true (If you think I am wrong - which I openly admit may be the case because I know I erred before - and corrected myself by changing my opinions - feel free to produce an argument or evidence so that I can correct myself - I would be truly thankful for your effort, because I think it is best to have the most correct model of the world - truth - as
possible):

 
 
I am a sexist and think that is good and proper,
because, as stated above, nobody should be surprised that sex and sexual species are sexist. It's a no-brainer.
 
I want to have slaves.
Slavery is having people who are forced to work for the benefit of others. Slavery is bad, yes? So they say, but I think that is hypocrisy:
Do people, do YOU, want to be really rich? Like, having won 100 million dollars in some lottery? Yes, they and you do.
Why? Of course, one must not longer work and is free to buy all the goods and services one wishes.
But what truly happens here?
There is no exchange of goods and services anymore - like the butcher, with the small complication of money as a medium of exchange, effectively changing his sausages for the
bread of the baker. If one side has, effectively, unlimited money ("being really rich") - one side has to do all the work, while the other side has to do nothing anymore.
And this is exactly what slavery is: People being forced to work for other people, the latter needing to do no work, by the mighty magic of huge monetary wealth.
In our modern societies, there are no whips and iron balls on chains affixed to ankles anymore,
but being really rich is in effect the very same thing, slavery. Some may say that the people do not HAVE to work - but this is fallacious, we all know we NEED money to live and do well,
otherwise we would stop working as wage slaves immediately.
Therefore, I want slaves - because I dream of and desire to be rich. I want to be free of the suffering of being forced to work, and I want to enjoy the slavery of others for my pleasure.
Some say, of course, this is wrong; but this is not the matter here. I think most people prefer being superior and slavers to being "equal" and being wage slaves, I think most people dream
of being rich, and being rich has only a real advantage, an actual point, when others are not rich and have to serve those being rich.
So, look into yourself and find out if you desire to be rich. If that is so, you want to have slaves, too.
 
 
I am a homophobe and think that is good and proper.
As the word says, this is about fearing homosexuals, gay men specifically. Actually it is about rejecting gays, more or less - less so by being merely disgusted by them, more so by trying to
get away from them passively or actively.
All heterosexual men feel disgust at homosexual displays of other men. While this is universally so, the degree of this instinctive emotion varies from mere disgust and trying to keep a distance,
to attacking gays or, in the most extreme cases, even trying to kill them.
Why? Because gays hinder the successful reproduction of heterosexual men by making them infertile and killing them. How?
Gays have significantly more sex, more promiscuous sex than heterosexual men. This is because there are no constrains on their libido like in heterosexual men: Women are quite picky and reluctant
about having sex with men. No such constrains exist in gays - they are having sex with each other as much as they desire, and they desire usually a lot, and they usually have a lot of it 
(imagine what would happen to the sex life of hetero men if all women suddenly would be as willing to have sex as them!).
To give a quantitative indication about the promiscuity of gays: "Patient zero", the gay man who was thought to be the first human carrying the HIV virus, had unprotected sex with 2000 different men before he
was even 30 years old; this was and is not very uncommon, but the average is lower (there are, of course a lot of gays who never had sex or had only a few sex partners) - but the average is nevertheless a high
multiple of the average number for hetero men. So, where is the problem?
In disease. Gays infect themselves and others at much, much higher rates with venereal and all other sexually transmittable diseases than heterosexuals - for their sheer numbers of different sex partners, and
also by the nature of the intercourse (depositing sperm in the rectum is vastly more infectious than vaginal intercourse).
Just one example, HIV: About 80% of new HIV infections happen in gays (who are a small part of the population), and (drug users injecting excluded) are the vast majority of all humans being infected with HIV (outside Africa).
Of course they infect themselves with many other diseases, too, at much higher rates, but those are curable or well treatable today, so these do not register as much of a public  problem.
Not so in the past, in humanity's evolutionary past of many millions of years:
Attracting a venereal disease meant evolutionary extinction for an heterosexual man, because there was no effective treatment - he either died from it, or became infertile, or very unattractive to women - either way his genes did not make it in the next generation.
Those men who carried genes for having a strong disgust emotion at gay displays therefore had a much lower chance of being infected with diseases, and therefore much higher chances for successful reproduction
and carrying their genes, and with them their instinctive gay-disgust, into the next generation.
"But wait!" you say and ask how the gays could infect the hetero men, for they did not have sex with each other? The answer lies in the bisexual men - who had sex with men and women alike (and who are more numerous
than gays). Human nature being what it is, females had sex with bisexual men before having sex with hetero men, or cheating their hetero men with them - and this is the vector the gay's venereal diseases
spread into the families of heterosexual men and to heterosexual men themselves, killing them.
This is the evolutionary origin of the instinctive "homophobia" in hetero men. It protects heterosexual men from being killed by homosexual men.
And therefore I think that homophobia is a good thing. I do NOT think that gays should be attacked or otherwise be disadvantaged if it can be avoided - they did not chose to be gay and are not
responsible for it, it is just another defect like a mental or physical disability, a sexual disability.
But I think heterosexual men have a right to instinctively fear gays and being disgusted by them. And because gays are such prolific disease carriers, I think they should be discriminated against where such
action protects the rest of society, for example blood donations from gays being not accepted.
 
 
 
I am a racist, and I think racism is something good and proper.
I checked and there are many different definitions for what racism actually is, quite a few even contradicting themselves. I've heard that even math or physics is racist, or that "ableism" is racist and 
so on - I think all such makes no sense and I am going to ignore it.
In current discourse "racism" seems to be universally used as an derogatory word for people or concepts some do not like - they often can't define clearly what they mean by it, other than that it is to be 
immoral or "evil", and, curiously, is meant as an universal accusation that is somehow expected to end all meaningful discussion by rhetoric defeat of those who are accused to be "racists".
Like "hate-speech" it is used as a subjectively-applied, universal tool to shut down any further discussion by anyone who is only able to utter that word.
I offer a different view:
Generally, racism is about genetic difference/similarity:
The more different another human is to our own genetic setup, the worse, the more unfriendly, the less altruistic we treat him, the more we discriminate him negatively.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is a thing most good;
because this racism is the exact foundation of family bonds and even motherly love:
The preference for ones blood relationship, children, siblings, parents, grandparents and so on - compared to all other humans is based only on genetic similarity!
Imagine a situation you can only save one of two children in time from drowning - another human's child, or your own child - then you decide obviously to save your own child. This is discrimination of the highest degree, for
you sentence the other, from your perspective "racially inferior", child to death, just because it is genetically less similar to you!
By discriminating our own genes and their carriers, our own blood relationship and kin, positively, we discriminate all other humans negatively. And exactly this is what racism is about.
I welcome this; I am thankful that my parents discriminated all other children negatively by preferring me to invest their resources in.
This is also true for the extended family, relatives, and in a certain sense also for "my people" as in "nation", because I share more genes with other Whites than I do, for example, share with Black people.
Notice that this is not about skin color or other superficial trait - it is about the general principle of kinship by genetic similarity.
And from this follows that I am much rather willing to assist or feel close to anyone who shares more of my genes, and that just happens to be other white people mostly - just like with family, by discriminating those
people more positively, I logically must discriminate other people more negatively, as I am not willing to treat all people equally, because I insist to treat my family, and other people who are genetically closer to myself,
better than everybody else: I am much more willing to altruistically give help to a German, Polish, French, British etc. human, I feel much more secure and comfortable close to these people, because I share much more genes with them,
I feel much more secure and comfortable  with them as neighbors than with people who differ from my genetic setup much more, for example, Black people.
Why? This is an instinct to spread one's own genes - an instinct all humans have, and the emphasis is on ONE'S OWN genes - human nature being what it is, having more people of different genetic setup close by will hinder the spreading of 
one's own genes - called reproduction, which is a human right for everyone. This is exactly what it is about: Spreading one's own genes, for this reason we evolved preferential treatment for our own family, this is the reason we chose
genetically similar reproduction partners whenever we can - we don't want to have sex with organisms of different genetic makeup, be it a horse or a human with very dissimilar genes.
Especially white men often feel uneasiness from, for example, Arabs and Blacks living near them - biologically, those feel threatening like conquerors who take (according our male territorial instinct) our own "tribal lands" away from us,
our "gene spreading sphere", we feel threatened by them to some degree on these grounds - in the end they will indeed to some degree have sex with "our" women, "take them from us", to spread their alien genes, from our perspective - thereby
negatively influencing the spread of our own genes (generally, all humans underlie natural and sexual selection, which means trying to spread one's own genes as wide as possible in competition with all other humans  - this is one of the most basic
motivations humans have).
Our instincts tell us that we are only safe if those "gene invaders" stay far away from us.
This is of special import because Africans' genes are mostly dominant over Whites' genes - mixed race children resemble always much more Blacks than Whites. If Whites obediently allow this it will lead to the extinction of many of Whites' genes.
Just like family preference or motherly love are nothing  but genetic egoism - for our highest, life-supporting benefit - racism is the same kind of advantageous instinct towards our genetic egoism.
Otherwise motherly love would be something bad, "racist" as the word is used by some, and this can't be true.
It goes without saying that the same is true for all other humans - Asians, Blacks, Eskimos, whomever.
All of those, everybody, humans of any kind of phenotype, all have the same right to be "racist" in that sense, to prefer their own genes by preferring their own kin, their own family, to those who are of more different genetic setup, like, for example, me. I see nothing wrong about a black mother saving her black child, but not a white child, if she can only save one from drowning.
To speak in more political terms, I as a White person am racist against Blacks, and I am convinced that Blacks have the same right to be racist against me. This does absolutely not mean more than that (for example, of course, all "races", or if you want to call it phenotypes or whatever, should have the same rights before the law) but also not less.
Who tries to forbid racism therefore also forbids family bonds, preferential treatment of family members, motherly love toward one's own child (and not someone elses' child) - without that kind of racism we all would be really more equal - because families would cease to exist. I do not want that, I want racism, because I see it as a foundation of humanity.
I want the right to discriminate my children, my family, and as their extension, my people, over others.
I not only consider that something good, but also my natural right.

 

 


"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"When outmatched... cheat." Batman

#18 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1258 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 02:50 AM

I see your arguments and would like to comment on them: First of all, I have not played ME:A and have no idea about any anit-white or anti-male undertones in the game itself. I agree that people should be employed regarding their qualification and not their gender or political views. And I still want to believe that this was done in ME:A. You yourself value freedom of speech, but attack the developers for theirs, which I think is hypocritical. As I said, I have not played the game and cannot say how much of their opinion acutally went into the game, but just like many others you appear to seem quite sensitive to the subject in the opposite direction. Right now it is impossible to please everyone. Employ a white heterosexual male and (some) people will scream "This is racism/sexism!", employ a transgender black woman and (other) people will scream "This was done to be ploitically correct!". I think that all in all everyone is overly sensitive in that regard, right now, and I honestly hope that this will change somewhere in the near future.

 

Regarding your controversal opinions, you wanted people to give arguments and I will try to, but you yourself write polemic paroles without any proof (at least so far). Especially, regarding homosexuals I would request some sources, as many of the arguments written there sound rather far fetched. But I want to comment step by step.

 

Sexism:

I agree insofar as men and women have different physologies and accordingly it is not possible to treat them completely equally. However, this is not what sexism is about. Sexism is about discriminating and belittling women, which simply should not be done. This is especially true for certain jobs (like soldiers or firefighters). Women may have a generally weaker physique than men, but in these cases they should not be treated any different. A fire does not discriminate between man and woman, when it burns. And if a woman is not strong enough to carry a wounded person out of a fire, she is simply not qualified for the job. Thus, by treating women equally to men, they will have to meet the same requirements for jobs and if they don't, men should be prefered for a position. This will, of course, result in male dominated jobs, but in this case I think it is correct and forcing in women will just result in worse quality for these services. In contrast, there are otehr areas, where women shine and in these we will have female dominated areas. Again, I think this not sexism against males, but equality. Of course, there are a lot of areas, where the gender does not matter (like programming) and these positions should be staffed with whoever is best.

 

Slavery:

From what I hear from your argument, you don't want to have slaves, you simply want to be rich and don't have to work anymore. From the fact that you have a computer I would say that you are, at the very least, rich. Maybe not the "I am a millionaire and won't have to work anymore" type of rich, but the "I have no fear of starving and can waste time with arguments on the internet" rich. Slavery, on the other hand, means that you suppress people and force them to work for you wothout paying them. On a global scale, one could argue, that this is already happening. Well, we pay the children in China that produce our smartphones, but still, we are the rich few that can live a good life, while the poor masses are starving. Slavery was just replaced with hunger wages on a global scale, so I would say, you already have what you want. Personally, I do not want slaves, as they could uprise and revolt. I would prefer machines that do my work for me, so I do not have to do any hard labor myself without the possibility of a revolt (as long as the AI is not intelligent enough, but this is another discussion). The only "advantage" I see in slaves over robots is the power over another human life. It is nothing I crave, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

Homophobia:

As mentioned before, I would like to get sources for some of your statement: Patient Zero having sex with over 2000 men, for example. Apart from the fact that the original source is still unknown, it is discussed that the HIV was first contracted by eating infeted meat. After a quick (and not overly thorough) search it appears to be true that the high rate of HIV infected homosexuals lies in the frequently changing partners, but I could not find any indication that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. The only thing I could think of, that may indicate this, is a study done on drosophyla, in which the gene, that is supposedly connected to the development of homosexual behaviour, leads to higher promiscuity in heterosexual animals. This study explains why homosexuality has not disappeared through evolution (and is indeed something completely natural), but did not say anything about the promiscuity of homosexual animals.

The point that is most important for me is: You can avoid homosexuals as much as you want, as long as they are not discriminated or persecuted for their sexual preference. If they are indeed HIV positive or have similar infections, I agree that they should not be allowed to donate blood, but (at least in Germany) the donated blood is tested for infections, so infected blood is destroyed. Thus, I see no reason, why homosexuals should not donate blood, especially considering that (according to Wikipedia) only 3-10% of people in Germany donate blood.

 

Racism:

Some of the arguments you present, are not really racist, but rather sexual preferences. We cannot really influence, who we love/desire, so any arguments made on that basis I would dismiss as non-racist. Still, there are other arguments that I have to comment on: First of all: You speak about preventing the extinction of certain phenotypes (which is dangerously close to "keeping the blood pure"; I may be oversensitive here, but as a German citizen I was brought up to tread carefully here). While I also prefer certain "rare" phenotypes (like red hair) over others, from a genetic point of view, genetic diversity is the key to survival. Keeping your genetic pool closed to makes you more prone to certain diseases (just like monoculture in agriculture) and may lead to an increased number of genetic defects.

The preference of kin over others is only natural, but the question is how far this goes. If you prefer kin over other people (regardless of qualification), this is not racism, but nepotism. Another case, that leads to another set of problems. If you prefer people of your own phenotype in jobs etc. that would be another case of hypocrisy, as you (originally) complained that incompetent people were employed over more qualified ones for the sake of diversity and political correctness. And well, if you discriminate/persecute people of different colour, this is simply the worst and not acceptable.

 

I may have made some mental leaps and I apologise for that and I hope that I did not make too many mistakes, but I don't want to re-read my whole answer.



#19 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 02:52 AM

I was a bit assumptive while talking about meds, but this wall of text actually proves I was right. You just need an outlet, a platform for your philistinism, which is less interesting to read than you may think.

 

Nobody wants to respond to you with similar walls of text, because of the roughly assumed, more or less common knowledge required to post here and to be the part of this community (similar to Eco's concepts of library and encyclopedia), as that allows mental shortcuts and gnerally faster communication.

 

As for concrete arguments, this is what you missed in your education, and at least in European system, this is taught on secondary / high-school level:

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/New_Criticism

 

In short, while talking about somebody's work, literary or otherwise, nobody gives a fuck if the author was gay, ugly or miserable. The most important is what you can say about the work, based on it's contents only; then in relation to other works of the same author; then related to other autors and works of that era, conceptual predecessors, successors etc. And then you may add, that despite his/er work, the author was misreable in life, but this is an equivalent of scientific gossip (and definitely not in the way you put it above).

 

As for your "natural law" you should know that if you're born in democracy, or in any type of juristidction for that matter, you forfeit that law:

 

https://en.wikipedia...Social_contract

 

How come you're a grown-up and not know this is beyond me.



#20 Outlooker

Outlooker

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 08:10 AM

  DESTINED "You yourself value freedom of speech, but attack the developers for theirs, which I think is hypocritical."

I did not "attack" them for having private opinions, but for expressing them - what I mostly perceive as hatred towards white men - in their game made for such white men and then wondering why it flopped.

Making a game that has "appeals not to the customer base" written all over it and then wondering that it does not sell is what I criticized, because I see a very causal relationship there.
If they want to make money, they should actually be hypocrites - shutting up about their feelings and opinions in their professional work and keeping them in their private sphere.
If a plumber advertises his services with an anti-Hispanic bias he should not wonder why there might be little business from Hispanic customers.
 
"Right now it is impossible to please everyone. Employ a white heterosexual male and (some) people will scream "This is racism/sexism!", employ a transgender black woman and (other) people will scream "This was done to be politically correct!". I think that all in all everyone is overly sensitive in that regard, right now, and I honestly hope that this will change somewhere in the near future."
Perhaps not, because many benefit from this conflict (financially, as explained in my 1st post), and I have the suspicion that at least some, on both sides, enjoy it.
It produces a lot of outrage and attention, which leftist and rightist news outlets greatly benefit from in terms of clicks and therefore profit. Those alone should have an interest of keeping the conflict hot.
Underyling greater cause perhaps is the generally falling prosperity for the masses, in EU and USA, mostly because many crises converge in our times:
1)The rise of China, which moves ever more jobs and profits there;
2)The financial crisis/Great Contraction of the debt system
3)Demographic change - more and more pensioners have to be financed by more and more workers.
Real mass incomes are not only stagnating or falling, getting a job becomes difficult, getting a stable long-term job that pays decently for many or most becomes almost like winning the lottery.
There is much frustration and fear, and from that comes anger, and people seek scapegoats and they look first at people they like least, and they attack each other and then they hate each other even more.
 
 
 
"Sexism is about discriminating and belittling women, which simply should not be done."
Why?
Women are not equal to men, so they should be discriminated against, in some positive and negative discrimination. The same happens to men.
"Belittling" also is done to both sexes. Women do not deserve respect for being women, as men do not deserve respect for being men; respect must be earned, you cannot demand it.
Some women today, especially of the feminist movement, try to "belittle", that is humiliate and dominate, google "manspreading" or "stare rape". Men have to shrug of such nonsense,
and women have to shrug off other types of nonsense, because they are not equal. They can not even, as far as I can see, have absolutely equal rights, because women have something that 
men lack: The means of reproduction. On top of that men tend no desire sex more than women, which many or even most women exploit mercilessly for personal gain and unfair advantage over
men. Men have to deal with that, women have to deal with other things. Both sexes are opponents in some areas, and they struggle both for privileges.
People compete, groups compete, and in that quality men and women are partially enemies, for it comes down to power and resource distribution.
Women already control 80% of how all the money is spent. On average, or even above it, men earn, and women spend it.
http://nypost.com/20...ntrol-spending/
Women avoid all the jobs that are really dirty or dangerous - work-related deaths are a fate that is 90% male.
https://en.wikipedia...tional_fatality
Etc. etc. - men AND women can and must and are expected to endure a little "belittling" here and there.
Some women have a tendecy to cry out at the least bit of unpleasantness and often get away with it and receiving privileges - men who try the same are getting laughed at.
Sexism exists, and it is good the way it exists, and it should exist, for we are not true equals and we are in gender competition, at least partially.
 
 
"there are a lot of areas, where the gender does not matter (like programming) and these positions should be staffed with whoever is best."
1. Gender matters here, too : Men are drawn to "system thinking", women to "social thinking", on average. Even newborn babies are different in this: Girls fixate human faces longer, boys fixate "systems" (mobiles, toys) longer.
http://citeseerx.ist...p=rep1&type=pdf
There is loads of research of sex differences, and generally it is fact that men and women have different brains and different talents and most importantly they enjoy different things which leads to different things they do in
life, if they can decide freely: Men like "systems" and their manipulation, and women like all things "social", that is manipulation of other people.
Most men are disinterested in things like nursing, most women are disinterested in engineering, which includes programming.
2. Industrialists seem to hate this and try to recruit more women into technical fields, I suppose to bring wages down due to the increased supply of workers, and possibly because of the increased threat from 1300 million Chinese
as financial and scientific competition. Feminism is pushed, I think, so much these days to manipulate women into getting jobs and working long and hard, to help the economy, especially in the light of the points 1,2,3 above.
Elites hate it that women can afford to not work due to their magical vagina powers, which makes a lot of men work doubly hard and finance them, with or without rising a family; the effective direction and cause of
feminism is, I think, therefore actually anti-women - in the past generations women needed not to wage slave and just raised families, today feminism puts pressure on women to become "successful" and "independent" which all means
nothing else that the elites/rulers want to exploit their employment potential.
 
 
"From what I hear from your argument, you don't want to have slaves, you simply want to be rich and don't have to work anymore." 
As I argued, this is the same.
 
"Slavery, on the other hand, means that you suppress people and force them to work for you without paying them."
Can you live without money? No, you need money. And therefore you need to work. Really rich do not need to work, and can make the income-dependent people to work for them.
Pay or no pay, there is coercion - I could force you by inflicting physical pain to build a house for me and later pay you the full market price for it, I still forced you, used coercion to make you do it, pay or no pay.
"On a global scale, one could argue, that this is already happening. Well, we pay the children in China "
To be honest, I and most people don't give a damn. If I scratch my car or bump my toe or step with new-bought shoes into dog poop I feel more anger than when I learn that a million Chinese children died.
Real human nature is to be selfish, if people really cared they would do many things differently, but they are drawn to the cheapest prices, that is, highest amount of goods for themselves, and are readily willing
to ignore everything else, unless it is pressed and forced onto their attention by TV.
Maybe you have "ideals", and I would advise you to get rid of them quickly, it is a disease making you only suffer and having no upside.
"Slavery was just replaced with hunger wages on a global scale".
Yes. And I do not really care for those billions of poors, and most people in richer countries also do not give a damn, and the poor people are also caring not much for other poor people.
On top of that, as cynical as it sounds, the poor people globally are much better of being exploited for us with hunger-wages than they were before. It's cruel, it's evil, it's wrong, but everybody thinks
"better them than I" and those who buy a 10. Ferrari see no sense in instead giving that money to the poor, one of the reason for this is that the multimillionaire with the Ferrari collection is competing
with other people of such wealth, and he tries to win or at least keep up, which in his circles is the think of #1 import.
China has now more billionaires than the USA,
http://www.bbc.com/n...siness-37640156
and I cannot observe that those recently "un-poor" Chinsese would give a damn for other poor Africans or even their fellow poor Chinese, certainly give nothing of their money away to them in significant amounts.
People are selfish, get used to it. If you want help the poor, you must think a way the rich would profit from it...
 
 
 
"Personally, I do not want slaves, as they could uprise and revolt."
Weirdly enough, even the poorest of the poor hold the idea that their only real problem is a lack of money for themselves. Slaves want to become rich these days, because it is much better than even a successful
revolution, at which end they would still have not much. "Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven."
 
" I would prefer machines that do my work for me"
Machines cannot produce the greatest source of wealth and income today: Innovation. Humans must do that, even human slaves (though these kind of slaves tend to be so well-paid that they are almost no slaves, only
also exploited by the upper class). You can have robot servants mining and farming for you, but they do not develop medicine for you, they produce no movies or anything else new and better which you sooner or later
want or need. Therefore you need humans.
 
" The only "advantage" I see in slaves over robots is the power over another human life. It is nothing I crave, but hey, whatever floats your boat."
Humans crave social status. The world is not driven by money, but by envy. Humans do most of what they do for keeping or increasing their social status, because that is what brings success in natural and sexual
selection. If some Wizard used magic to make all humans perfectly equal in beauty, strenght,intellect and wealth etc., but kept human nature the way it is, those humans would try to outcompete, outsmart and
socially dominating each other by the next minute. The basic social function of humans is social comparison, we cannot even perceive others without comparing them to ourselves and calculating our place in the
human pecking order...
 
 
"I would like to get sources for some of your statement: Patient Zero having sex with over 2000 men, for example."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaëtan_Dugas

 
" Apart from the fact that the original source is still unknown, it is discussed that the HIV was first contracted by eating infeted meat."
I do not know. Others say it comes from Africans not only eating "infected meat" (monkeys, very similar viruses exist in monkeys) but having sex with monkeys, which has been observed by researchers and was a thing so fascinating to early anthropologists
that even ideas of human-chimpanzee hybrids made rounds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Others opine that HIV is a bioweapon, given that it works on the population of Africa in reducing their population growth rather effectively.
There are rumors that some "aid organizations" infected many Africans decades ago through deliberately non-disinfected vaccination guns - all just hearsay.
 
"The point that is most important for me is: You can avoid homosexuals as much as you want, as long as they are not discriminated or persecuted for their sexual preference."
That is not like human moral instinct works - humans care a great lot of what other people are doing and are allowed to do, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex. Few other topics are of greater moral import,
be it about who has sex with whom and does what, pedophilia etc. - in short, humans are hypocrites who often want others to forbid what they secretly desire themselves, so that they have better chances
at sexual selection. Look at the official and actual position of the Catholic church - monogamy lip service in public, over one million sexually abused children by clerics that have become publicly known cases
in the last few decades alone. Look at the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal recently - 1000s of young girls sexually abused and prostituted in Great Britain, and almost nobody wanted to see anything
because they hoped to benefit from that fresh sex meat  or because it was contrary to their ideological world view.
I think that gays should not be prosecuted for being gay, as it's not their own fault, but they should be allowed to be discriminated, at least in a way that allows heterosexual men who feel much disgust
for them to being not legally forced to interact with them socially or something like that.
 
 
"Thus, I see no reason, why homosexuals should not donate blood"
It's not just about known and detectable infections - we know that there are thousands of types of viruses and bacteria that hide in the human body and could cause disease, but can't and couldn't be identified because
they could not be cultured; they were only recently found by mass DNA sequencing techniques recently available. Gays have a higher probability to have a greater collection of those.
Newly combined viruses forming new diseases are also more probable to being made in gays.
And then HIV is only detectable two months after infection, but, especially in blood transfers, is infectious earlier that that.
Look, I do not hate gays, I do not want them to suffer, but heterosexual men suffer from their disgust reaction at gay displays, too. I mean, ideally the whole thing would be not much of an issue, if everybody would
keep their sexuality private, but especially some gays are overcompensating the disgust reaction of hetero men towards them with "gay pride", parades and such, which are extra unpleasant and disgust-inducing to
hetero men and make them suffer. I feel that people should not try to force their sexuality or its display on other people who do not like it, but sadly some gays think otherwise.
Other gays are, of course, great people, like Peter Thiel who I respect a lot for his smarts, for example - but even he was forced into outing his homosexuality by other humans, which he otherwise would have liked
keeping private. As long as gays can do that and just appear like everybody else - heterosexual men do not notice each other and ignore each other most of the time completely - it would probably be best for all.
Some must parade their sexuality and force them on other people, be it some gays or lesbians or feminists or furries or whatever - I think that is unpolite by causing other people discomfort, or worse.
 
 
"You speak about preventing the extinction of certain phenotypes (which is dangerously close to "keeping the blood pure"; I may be oversensitive here, but as a German citizen I was brought up to tread carefully here)."
I'd like to have those who like "keeping the blood pure" should be allowed to do so, and not be forced into interracial relationships, like some liberal/leftist people seem to want to achieve.
Human nature being what it is makes this impossible if young people of different races are close to each other, while it would be more possible if they would be kept far away from each other.
Then again I am wrong and it is not necessary, as proven in the USA: While being racially mixed for over 250 years, not much of interracial breeding of Blacks and Whites seems to have happend, because most Whites instinctively
or deliberately preferred to breed with their own kind only.
I would not want to make it illegal - specific Blacks may be great and superior over even almost all Whites, for example Thomas Sowell, who has a towering intellect and genetic quality. He would be fine breeding material
for any woman. The average Black, however, is of much lower IQ than the average Whites, and I have reservations about interbreeding.
It may shock you or others, but humans, especially today, select their reproduction partners so to get those with the highest genetic quality. Even in the past, when genetics was not even dreamed of, the same drive
was in place called LOVE - love is not what Disney movies present it like, love is nothing else as an selection mechanism to exterminate inferior life, that is inferior genes, that is people who carry inferior genes,
because such people are less or not at all loved.
The Chinese have no moral headaches at all obeve this and aggressively push eugenics (we all are actually eugenicists, YOU TOO - or do you want a dumb, ugly, unhealthy sexual reproduction partner or do you seek out,
or "fall in love" with the exact opposite?) - they select embryos for health and high IQ right now, and they push billions of dollars into reaserch of genetic engineering of superhumans, home superior,
and hope to push the average IQ of every  generation of Chinese 10 to 30 points higher:
http://www.dailymail...ts-predict.html
http://www.bbc.com/f...tic-enhancement
https://www.reddit.c...hrough_genetic/
http://www.telegraph...an-embryos.html
 
China Could Start treating non-Genius Intelligence as a Birth Defect Starting later this year
https://www.nextbigf...yo-genetic.html
 
 
"from a genetic point of view, genetic diversity is the key to survival."
Humans, even in "racially pure" populations, are hugely genetically diverse already. Compared to other species, we are even ridiculously genetically diverse, being the species most so on the planet, by a looong shot.
Look at all animals, they look much alike, look at humans, and they come in so many sizes and shaped and colors of skin and hair it is even obvious from a first glance what a mixed up mongrel species we are.
With globalisation, we should rather protect and keep that diversity, than allowing to mix up with each other so that in the future there is only on kind of equally brown average-like type of human.
 
 
" Keeping your genetic pool closed to makes you more prone to certain diseases (just like monoculture in agriculture) and may lead to an increased number of genetic defects."
This is only true for isolated and rather small populations which do not exist anymore today outside of tiny refuges in South America and New Guinea.
Actually, children of mixed-race kids are in worse health than children of one-racial parents:
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pdf/0931865.pdf
 
 
"The preference of kin over others is only natural, but the question is how far this goes. If you prefer kin over other people (regardless of qualification), this is not racism, but nepotism."
There is a saying like "only those who never were tempted are honest" - humans are nepotistic if they can. Probably that has positive and negative effects both, maybe this way the wealth stays in the family,
but it may lead to less imcompetent people holding positions.
 
"Another case, that leads to another set of problems. If you prefer people of your own phenotype in jobs etc. that would be another case of hypocrisy, as you (originally) complained that incompetent people were employed over more qualified ones for the sake of diversity and political correctness."
You misread, "diversity and political correctness" was, in my opinion, only a pretext from top management to hire cheaper employees and therefore lowering wages, because those suffer from (true or imagined) inferiority feelings and
sell themselves cheaper, as the management can pay them partly with fake "respect".
Also there is a difference between people doing so privately and being forced to do so by government regulations. I think enforcing racial segregation and forcing "diversity" or quotas by law is both wrong, because people and companies end up
with each other who'd rather not want each other if they were free to choose.
Some companies seemingly found a clever way around that problem:
They anonymize job application papers - photo ID, name, age, sex, nationality etc. are all removed from the data, only a number remains, and then the decision is made purely by credentials and competence.
Weirdly, it didn't work - the racially or otherwise somehow unpopular people were simply fired more often afterwards, and soon the employee structure looked much the same as before.
And, even more weirdly, it has been found that the sex distributation in most jobs based on such "blinded hiring" was even more in favor of men than with the regular employee selection process...
 
 
"And well, if you discriminate/persecute people of different colour, this is simply the worst and not acceptable."
I discriminate, because they are genetically dissimilar, but skin color is only one facet of many. It is easily possible that I even as a white person were "racist" towards other Whites, if they look very different from myself,
(there is usually an immediate feeling of unlikability), and instead would favor a black person who looks otherwise very similar to myself. As I said, skin color is only one single special aspect of the general principle of
genetic similarity.
And "persecuting" I would nobody based on his looks or genetic similarity to me, of course, human right and equal rights before the law are, of course, a given. But I want to privately have the right, without being painted as
evil or immoral, to discriminate againt people I do not like negatively and those I like positively.
For example, if there were  perfect genetic copies of myself, just with a small difference in one gene leading to another skin color, say one me blue, one me black, one me green, one me white - then I would privatly like the white one (like myself)
a tiny bit more and therefore treat him a little better; if I were black I would want to treat the black me a little better and so on. 
 
"I may have made some mental leaps and I apologise for that"
No need for that, if anybody has to apologize it's me, I seem to have opened up some multi-dimensional can of worms that is perhaps really not suited to be discussed here and in that form.
Still, I hope some have maybe gained a few insights or inspirations.

Maybe I am really mad, every few months or so I get in the mood to write such posts. I'll try to eat more vegetables.


"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"When outmatched... cheat." Batman

#21 Outlooker

Outlooker

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 08:19 AM

Judith

 

 

"I was a bit assumptive while talking about meds, but this wall of text actually proves I was right."
So, those who write longer texts trying to explain themselves are mentally defective? I disagree that this "proves" that you "was right" that I was insane.
I do agree that I currently lack ability to be concise, but I will try to improve myself.
I fear that by explaining too briefly, by not building an argument up from the ground, I could me misunderstood; for it is true that something that is completely 
obvious to some is unknown and surprisingly interesting to others.
 
"You just need an outlet"
I indeed use posts like these to try to structure my thoughts, exercise my writing ability and possibly excite some people to point out flaws in my reasoning, or faults
in my opinions. Whenever I find time and would be in the mood I came here to do that, because I feel, judging by experiences of the past, that people here are
polite and insightful.
 
"a platform for your philistinism, which is less interesting to read than you may think."
I wonder if this is again just a fancy form of ad hominem, but I am indeed not the artsy, "dancing my feelings" artist type, more of a technical, down-to-earth person.
I noticed that artist characters and my type often are a bit at odds with each other, it seems to me that the more technically oriented people see not a real point in
what artists and hippies do, and the latter kind thinks the technical characters as narrow-minded and almost offensively boring.
Even in universities there is not much love between the arts faculty and the science and engineering faculty.
But maybe you are somewhat close-minded in this regard, too, because I would bet that most of the things art people do art with and by is actually made and invented
by the tech people...
And while I sometimes feel some itch of unpleasentness when I experience some kind of artsy people personally, I do respect some of them, those who actually produce things I
value, a lot - like yourself, IIRC you made some impressive contributions to the mod.
 
 
 
 
"Nobody wants to respond to you with similar walls of text"
That's OK, I don't mind at all, I did not even expect such.
 
"because of the roughly assumed, more or less common knowledge"
I doubt that one would get far with common knowledge only, maybe more so with common sense. I deliberately hoped to introsduce some at least seldom-heard facts and ideas
for those who may enjoy such.
 
"(similar to Eco's concepts of library and encyclopedia)"
The "eencyclopedia has been contemporarily largely replaced by Google;
but I am convinced that people would greatly benefit from having read some of the library, so to speak.
Even those with light-speed access to all data in the world still have no knowledge, no understanding, for this must be derived from mere data by our brains;
simple facts can be instantly accessed and known, but complex insights and abilities to understand and solve more complex problems need a broad knowledge-base,
the broader the better - and I feel it is exactly this what more and more people lack these days, for suffering from the illusion that by having Google with them
at all times means in some abstract way to know everything.
 
"as that allows mental shortcuts and generally faster communication."
And shallower, more superficial at that. Great insights never came from those, but from pondering a problem at length.
 
15 years or so I read Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" and remember it as one of the most useless, pointless books and complete waste of my time. I find book-burning to be of bad taste,
but should I ever need to do so to sustain my life, this one would be among the first.
 
 
"As for concrete arguments, this is what you missed in your education, and at least in European system, this is taught on secondary / high-school level:"
You are right, I really do not care a lot about "aesthetic qualities" - I try to ignore feelings and prevent them even, for I think they are lies to be brought down,
distractions at best. I want to understand how things WORK, I do care very little for what the FEEL.
Feelings are important, of course, especially because they can explain how people work (behavioral sciences) - but I am not drawn to experience them much, aesthetics is among the last
things I care for.
 
"In short, while talking about somebody's work, literary or otherwise, nobody gives a fuck if the author was gay, ugly or miserable. The most important is what you can say about the work
, based on it's contents only"
To put it simply, I do not care about the electrician as long I am content with his work, but if the lamp he installed in my house falls from the ceiling I am suddenly more interested
in him because I want to find out what went wrong and to find out if he is actually competent (for repairs or if I would want to hire him again in the future).
I completely agree - nobody would talk about the developers of ME:A much if the game would have been fantastic. But it was the opposite, and therefore people try to figure out why.
And it stands out that a lot of key people from ME1+2+3 left the developing studio in great numbers and were replaced by the kind of people I presented in my first post, and I still think
that there is a causal relationship, which is the reason I pointed it out in the first place.
And I feel I can't dodge the political and sexist argument, because I still think that having a lot of developers who are very clearly anti-white and anti-male are responsible for the
fact that white males - the guys who were meant to buy this game - found the game underwhelming. Alienating your consumer base is simply a wrong business decision.
Why would white males want to buy a game without attractive females, but dyke-like ones, and a general underlying tendency of presentation that appears just SJW-ish?
 
 
"As for your "natural law" you should know that if you're born in democracy, or in any type of jurisdiction for that matter, you forfeit that law:"
Precisely, technically, I only must submit under the social contract if I am weaker than those who uphold it; which is, of course the case, but the social contract is neither eternal
nor unchangeable. But this is moot.
But you are correct, I should have not argued from "natural right". But this is not the point, because even within the current legal system "racism" is not illegal - perhaps because
people cannot even really agree on what it is exactly.
I argued that I have and should have the right that people discriminate those who they "like", that is, who they are genetically similar to, positively, and everybody else negatively - 
in terms of privileged treatment of family or friends and extended kin, and worse treatment of everybody else - and I see this as what "racism" is all about, because it includes even the
right to hate those who are genetically dissimilar.
Note that this does not mean that the government and laws should treat people differently - equal rights and laws for everybody still apply, but PRIVATELY inequality rules apply, because
otherwise there could be no positive discrimination of family members etc. - and therefore also no negative discrimination, which I insist is and should be allowed - for example, if some
people hate some kind of other people, they should be free to segregate themselves from them in housing, if they can afford it; nobody can hate or un-hate others at will, and if one would
suffer from being forced into "diversity" race-mixed living instead being free to live racially segregated, then one should not only be allowed to do so but also not being called a "racist" in
an accusing way. Actually, most humans like to live racially segregated rather much, as evidenced by "China towns" etc.
Rich people, that is mostly Whites, do it for a long time already , to feel safer and more comfortable, living in "gated communities", which, practically, for one reason or another, means
white gated communities.
It is and shall be no crime or morally bad to want, for example, having to do as little as possible with most black or poor people. This was and is so because, fundamentally, the reason for this are
genetically hard-wired instincts. People mostly avoid having friends out of their social class, for example.
 
Sorry again for the long texts. People these days often have shorter attention spans, and even mine has been strained, because writing takes more of it than just reading.
Please, read or ignore it at your pleasure, I don't want to bother anybody.
 

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
"When outmatched... cheat." Batman

#22 HMart

HMart

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:06 AM

Unless you born yesterday and are ignorant of what is happening in society (specially American society after that disgrace of President) i claim you knew well enough your post would bring controversy to this forum, specially when your kind of opinion has been causing controversy for decades now.

 

"Outlooker your post is the most stupid garbage i ever read"
Yes, maybe. But you did not refute any argument, you just stated an opinion and produced an ad hominem. There is no substance in that statement, no argument. You basically only
informed me that you think I am stupid and you feel offended - that's all.


Fair enough.

 
 

"your male bigotry"
I will not excuse myself for being a male, this seems, by all means, quite excessive.
"Bigotry" means "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself" -  therefore I am NOT a bigot, because I am very tolerant of other opinions, which, incidentally,
is obviously NOT true for you and some others because of the very (ad hominem) attacks on me right here in this thread.

 
You are just playing the victim, and being hypocritical, playing the "good boy being misjudged and unjustly attacked",will certainly gain no apology from me, your original post is and will be a sign of a mentality that I despise and think people should avoid like the fire. No you will not excuse yourself from being a male but you are certainly not special for being so.
Ok perhaps bigotry was the wrong word, English is not my mother language so mistakes are bound to happen, what i meant was something like prejudice and you certainly display it, yes i also do but at lest my prejudice is against armful prejudices like, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, male chauvinism (like yours), etc.    
 
 
 

"sexism is something that any sane person should avoid and ridicule"
I am a sexist, because I think that is right and proper, and I wonder why people see a problem with that.
Sex is sexist, alone this should end the argument.
Furthermore, it is obvious that men and women are in many respects very different, and therefore I think they should not be treated completely equal; for example, women are on average
physically weaker, and should not be forced to meet the same physical performance requirements, and this also results in unequal treatment in things like jobs were this is very relevant,
for example in combat soldiers or firefighters. Women own the monopoly on reproduction, because men cannot bear children, therefore another very relevant source of "sexism" is evident.
"Any sane person" again tries to imply that those who think otherwise suffer from a mental disease, which is - again - an ad hominem attack - or worse, if you had more power, because I fear
I would be already forcefully hospitalized...


This shows how blind people like you really are, of course you don't see anything bad with what you say, if you did you would not have made your post in the first place, just like a certain Muslim Imã, inadvertedly compared a woman that was raped by 3 men to a peace of meat by saying "Of course, if you let a peace of meat on the street a cat will eat it!", not realizing how wrong that analogy was, in the same vain you don't comprehend why people are offended by your post.
 

 

"Bikerdude i'm very surprised you liked his post"
You are completely free to be surprised, of course, but I feel there is something else happening here: I think you try to put social pressure on him, to sub-communicate or imply he did not behave as you want or
demand from him. He does not need to conform to your opinions, and he should not be subtly threatened with "exclusion from the tribe of those with the proper opinion", so to speak. I feel this is
some form of aggression, kind of like a teacher belittling her pupil for holding a wrong opinion.


You are free to think anything you want, and he or anyone are certainly in no way forced to behave or agree with my views, and neither should they expect the same from me.  I was just very surprised about it, i'm a very long poster (and lurker) on this forum, I've seen many discussions from him and never noticed any kind of prejudice from is part, is my fault for being a fan of this team work and sometimes, i tend to put people i admire in some "higher standard" forgetting they are simple humans like me and they will have different ideals.
 
Bikerdude if you feel so, i apologise, that was never my intention, if you agree with this guy, i will certainly strongly disagree with both of you, but that is my problem not yours and in no way will that erase or affect my opinion of the work you did for this game.


Edited by HMart, 23 August 2017 - 09:06 AM.


#23 stumpy

stumpy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1664 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:28 AM

I just wonder why no one working at Bioware mentioned the dead staring eyes of the characters during beta testing. or quality control, and they had to wait for players to mention the fact.



#24 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1258 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:39 AM

From what I have read, the most important point on which we disagree is, what counts as "discrimination". When I used the term I did not mean "view poeple in a different way" (which apparently is your definition), but rather the negative aspects linked to the word. I had a lengthy discussion with a freind about the racism of the word "nigger", as he viewed as a simple description for the skin colour, while it has developed a negative association by now. The same is true for sexism in the way I used it. It is not meant as "treating one sex different than the other", but rather "treating one sex worse than the other". I agree that it is not possible to not discriminate (in the treat different way) other people. Everyone has their stereotyped thinking. Still, it should affect how you treat people as little as possible. I am pretty much a "Do not treat others in a way, in which you would not want to be treated yourself" kind of guy. I don't want to be attacked for being heterosexual, so I don't attack people who are not heterosexual. Also, I am not so insecure that I would feel disgust at displays of male-to-male affection. At least not any more than I feel at male-to-female or female-to-female. Depending on the intensity I would wonder in any case if this is necesseary in public, but this is not dependent on the sex of the participants. Even if a homosexual would hit on me, I would tell him that I am flattered, but not interested, pretty much as I would tell a woman that I don't find attractive. It is not like a homosexual will rape right on the spot or something, so what's the deal? Regarding STDs, I don't think that it is homo- or bisexual men that spread them, it is people who don't use protection and there are a whole lot of heterosexuals that do that, too, so I would not limit this to one particular group. In my opinion, you tend to project flaws on certain groups, that are present in all. It may be that there are problems more common in some groups than in others, but this is rather a problem of how the group developed in the past (often because they were treated in a certain way). I have no problem living next to black person. As long as he/she does not affect me, why should I? I would have a problem living in a neighbourhood, where have to double bolt my doors and carry a gun in order to feel safe. And this is regardless of the ethnicity.



#25 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 10:22 AM

People who really know what they're talking about, can do that in concise manner. It's not about ADD, it's about efficiency and respect for other people's time. So far, you have no idea what library and encyclopedia by Eco is, so you're trying to dismiss it. Hint, you may not find it in wiki. You're not above social contract either, unless you're going to a stateless island of some sort, but you sure take great lengths to convince yourself otherwise with weak sophistry, while talking everybody else here to death. On any other forums you'd just be banned for hate speech.
  • HMart and CarltonTroisi like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users