The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Chaos: "'Dude, contributing to something is absolutely the same as causing."
No, it's not. #wordshavemeanings
Chaos: "I don't buy it. I haven't seen the studies, maybe one day I'll really dive into it, but I somehow doubt there is a mountain of peer reviewed evidence on her side of this argument. And if there was, how would those academics feel about her use of the English language? Only half joking, of course, but again, you have watered down that statement as to be meaningless. "NPCs contribute to an atmosphere where X attitudes are more likely to develop" in what way is it possible to quantify that?"
The point is: There's nothing inherently dishonest about anything she's saying. No, there isn't a "mountain" of peer-reviewed evidence. Yes, the connections she makes between the studies and her conclusions are subject to debate. And no, there's nothing wrong with how she uses "encourage".
As for how it is possible to quantify Sark's stance, that's kind of the point. Sark's talking about systematic trends and how repeated exposure to certain types of media can have an effect on our attitudes. It's not an "X causes Y" statement, it's an invitation to be critical of the media we are exposed to and to be aware that we are not immune to being influenced by external stimuli. Is that dishonest?
No, it's not. #wordshavemeanings
Chaos: "I don't buy it. I haven't seen the studies, maybe one day I'll really dive into it, but I somehow doubt there is a mountain of peer reviewed evidence on her side of this argument. And if there was, how would those academics feel about her use of the English language? Only half joking, of course, but again, you have watered down that statement as to be meaningless. "NPCs contribute to an atmosphere where X attitudes are more likely to develop" in what way is it possible to quantify that?"
The point is: There's nothing inherently dishonest about anything she's saying. No, there isn't a "mountain" of peer-reviewed evidence. Yes, the connections she makes between the studies and her conclusions are subject to debate. And no, there's nothing wrong with how she uses "encourage".
As for how it is possible to quantify Sark's stance, that's kind of the point. Sark's talking about systematic trends and how repeated exposure to certain types of media can have an effect on our attitudes. It's not an "X causes Y" statement, it's an invitation to be critical of the media we are exposed to and to be aware that we are not immune to being influenced by external stimuli. Is that dishonest?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Chaos: "That would be a failure, not a victory. A victory would be to make him understand the corner he has painted himself into simply because he WANTS to support this person's positions."
Wait a second. You have taken two diametrically opposed stances to argue 2 back-to-back points, but somehow I am the one who has painted himself into a corner?
"Words have meanings! NEVER say X when you mean Y!"
"Meh. X and Y are pretty much the same. Why split hairs?"
Wait a second. You have taken two diametrically opposed stances to argue 2 back-to-back points, but somehow I am the one who has painted himself into a corner?
"Words have meanings! NEVER say X when you mean Y!"
"Meh. X and Y are pretty much the same. Why split hairs?"
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
See, the error in thinking here is in presuming he wants to be made to understand the corner he's painted himself into.
He's demonstrated for a year now his dishonesty in this regards. He wants to be painted into a corner, so he can play victim and pity party and white knight. He actually knows where he's at and has for awhile now. He just doesn't care.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,841
Bro, let's talk about this. I say "causing" and "contributing to" are fundamentally the same thing. I even ask you, hey if I say "blank causes blank" or "blank contributes to blank" would using either phrase confuse you. Neither would, because you are a smart enough guy. If Sarkeesian chooses not to use a definition of the word "encourage", either colloquial or otherwise, and you have a thread FULL of people confused by her use of the word. The answer is simple: use a different word. But she didn't do that, which leads people to assume she is being purposefully dishonest. Whether that is true or not only she knows.
If you admit that her position is impossible to quantify and there is not peer-reviewed evidence, then what the fuck are we even discussing here? Seriously.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You know, I used to really despise the term white knight. It tends to be used by blatant misogynists like Dumar or Antarius when you disagree with them that women aren't all exactly the same or some other such driven.
However, I can't come up with a better term for what Tanoomba is doing. It is quite clear he wouldn't have gone to this level of craziness over someone like Jack Thompson. He really will go to any levels of dishonesty to try and excuse or apologize for anything that Sarkeesian does or says. She could come out tomorrow and directly say "Hitman causes misogyny and any game that does that should be banned" and we would have Tanoomba redefining what she must have meant by misogyny and that her calling for a ban isn't actually censorship.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
- 51,238
- 249,722
You just called my children disgusting human garbage. It is time for fisticuffs. Prepare yourself.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 30,360
- 50,676
- 51,238
- 249,722
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Chaos: "Bro, let's talk about this. I say "causing" and "contributing to" are fundamentally the same thing."
And I say they fundamentally aren't. Both the dictionary and your previous official stance seem to suggest I'm in the right here. Unless, of course, there is some context in which I should interpret those words differently? And you know what? There IS! If I hear someone intentionally presenting "X causes Y" as the official paraphrasing of someone else's stance when they SHOULD be making a distinction between "X allows/contributes to Y", then context tells me this person has a grudge or is otherwise emotionally invested in convincing me this is a bad person. You don't generally get credit for having good arguments when most of what you're doing is picking apart things your opponent DIDN'T say.
Chaos: "I even ask you, hey if I say "blank causes blank" or "blank contributes to blank" would using either phrase confuse you. Neither would, because you are a smart enough guy."
It might actually confuse me, depending on the context. If you told me someone's official stance was that alcohol causes pregnancy, I would have reason to question whether or not some creative liberties were taken in the paraphrasing. And if you told me someone's official stance was that video games cause misogyny, I would have those same doubts. Funny how these little "self-evidencies" only seem to apply when they're in your favor, tho.
..But thanks. You're, like, smart, too... or whatever... *blushes*
Quaid: "I posit that people who eat ranch dressing are disgusting human garbage.
Discuss."
Make a video with decent production values that has a ton of references to video games I love, and I'll watch it. If it's interesting, if it gives me new perspective, if it encourages me to be more critical, I'll even commit to watching your next video. I can't promise to support you financially (I don't do donations except for Humble Bundles/GDQ and I've only contributed to 2 Kickstarter campaigns, both video games). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Entertain me. I'll give you the same welcome mat I offered to Sarkeesian. It don't get no fairer than that.
Khaliar: "He really will go to any levels of dishonesty"
No, see, YOU don't get to make that claim. YOU don't get to call me dishonest. It's worth nothing if YOU say it.
And I say they fundamentally aren't. Both the dictionary and your previous official stance seem to suggest I'm in the right here. Unless, of course, there is some context in which I should interpret those words differently? And you know what? There IS! If I hear someone intentionally presenting "X causes Y" as the official paraphrasing of someone else's stance when they SHOULD be making a distinction between "X allows/contributes to Y", then context tells me this person has a grudge or is otherwise emotionally invested in convincing me this is a bad person. You don't generally get credit for having good arguments when most of what you're doing is picking apart things your opponent DIDN'T say.
Chaos: "I even ask you, hey if I say "blank causes blank" or "blank contributes to blank" would using either phrase confuse you. Neither would, because you are a smart enough guy."
It might actually confuse me, depending on the context. If you told me someone's official stance was that alcohol causes pregnancy, I would have reason to question whether or not some creative liberties were taken in the paraphrasing. And if you told me someone's official stance was that video games cause misogyny, I would have those same doubts. Funny how these little "self-evidencies" only seem to apply when they're in your favor, tho.
..But thanks. You're, like, smart, too... or whatever... *blushes*
Quaid: "I posit that people who eat ranch dressing are disgusting human garbage.
Discuss."
Make a video with decent production values that has a ton of references to video games I love, and I'll watch it. If it's interesting, if it gives me new perspective, if it encourages me to be more critical, I'll even commit to watching your next video. I can't promise to support you financially (I don't do donations except for Humble Bundles/GDQ and I've only contributed to 2 Kickstarter campaigns, both video games). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Entertain me. I'll give you the same welcome mat I offered to Sarkeesian. It don't get no fairer than that.
Khaliar: "He really will go to any levels of dishonesty"
No, see, YOU don't get to make that claim. YOU don't get to call me dishonest. It's worth nothing if YOU say it.
- Status