Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

What I mean is that your particular situation is going to vary depending on whatever amount of tissue is still there, and I am not sure I’m willing to say a brain stem wouldn’t somehow contain a person’s consciousness. For me, whether or not I’m all there isn’t at all where the line starts or stops. For me quality of life has to do with my autonomy and ability to interact with the world around me. I think all of it is more about your personal conditions for life, not anyone else’s. I suppose scientifically clarifying what potential qualities of life there are is good, but I know if I’m not able to tell you whether I’m okay with what’s going on is the line where someone else should kill me.

Edit: Hahahaha, I was just about to mention time, too. I think my DNR is 5 years without any major advances in the medical field for that condition.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

note that becoming a donor doesn’t in any way mitigate your quality of care when you’re dying

Who the heck would believe it would? Organ donation is something that comes up after the professionals have done their best, and only as a “we failed to save this person, but some of their tissues can still help save others” perspective.

This is an incredibly common misconception, probably the one that keeps people from donating the most in my experiences.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

I go interesting directions on this. Primarily, I think anyone has to choose how they feel about these things for their own personal selves, and for their pre-teen children. We are probably brain dead if our cerebellum doesn’t work, but I also am not sure I believe that the term “brain dead” is functional anyway. There could still be some experience of awareness, if not consciousness that we don’t understand yet.

All of this said, my threshold for opting into death is rather low. As someone who has limited mobility already and cherishes it, I have little doubt (although I provide room for it) that I wouldn’t continue living if I were paralyzed from the neck down, despite already being rather mentally oriented. I am a visceral, physical person, and I enjoy sex a lot. Pretty much when I can’t physically enjoy life anymore, I’m out. I imagine having a cerebellum in a body unable to move would be a worse fate than so-called brain death, at least for me.

There are several amazing people in my life who have various levels of paralysis that have great qualities of life and are quite successful people. For me all of the political activism and writing and learning couldn’t make up for my desire to stretch out and lay in the grass or climb a tree or whittle or hug a puppy or trade rocks with kids or play backgammon or smoke or roll rice around in my fingers or swim in a lake or burn my fingertips on a candle or trace my partner or doodle or scratch an itch or fold clean clothes.

I may not be able to run or do a lot of things people without my disability can do, but I never knew those things so it’s hard to miss. I have lost ability, and it’s one of the worst feelings ever, and so acquired disability is something I try not to pretend I understand. Losing too much ability might as well kill me, I know that about myself.

I know this so well that I will probably be the one who ends my life, if something doesn’t happen to me. I don’t want to live into very old age, and it’s really not a sad or self loathing decision either. I just don’t want to see my mind go last, and I’d much rather go out on my own terms before I’m past caring. Don’t mistake me, I hope to live a long time, I love life, but that’s why I am not going to slowly watch it fade when my time is coming, though.

Before my limbs wont let me enjoy this life, my organs are failing, the cancer is creeping, and my mind wanders away from it all, I will lay down in the field and have a most beautiful death.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

I like this thread, but it’s important to me as a supporter of organ and blood donation to note that becoming a donor doesn’t in any way mitigate your quality of care when you’re dying, and that doctors will do their best to save you no matter what your donor status is. Please consider becoming a donor, as I personally consider it one of the most selfless and yet easy things to commit to.

I am also a strong supporter of end of life rights, and advocate for autonomous legally binding living wills. No one else should have a say in someone’s choice to die, and no one should get to measure someone’s values in that decision.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

I don’t know what my post has to do with yours at all Karma. I said libraries keep felons from wanting to felonize and that conservatives should help balance the books so they don’t get mugged. You said conservatives want to keep people dumb because it keeps them from being liberal, which I happen to agree with, but not based on my last post.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

If you don’t understand the functional usefulness of a library for society, then you can afford to pay for it to service people who do need it. You may then continue to live in your beautiful and ignorant little world that is maintained by things you’ll never understand. I mean in the most cold, unintelligent selfish logic, if you don’t want to get mugged, support social services that keep people out of jail. It’s not nice to maintain the lower class, it’s not your responsibility, it’s simply what you’re going to have to deal with either way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

That was a really bad statistical analysis of republicans as Vika mentioned.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

If Clinton really did call Trump up and tell him to be a stronger member of his party,

the man is even more of an evil mastermind than I ever imagined. Seriously, he’s a goddamned sleuth and the closest thing to an antichrist the world has ever seen. The man weaves silver linens lighter than air with a mere mortal tongue. He ditched those two reporters out of NK. He invented modern politics by turning his money laundering and real-estate indictments into a sex scandal, avoiding a serious impeachment trial and potential jail time. He plays sax on MTV. He teams up with all of the former presidents to start a private “non-profit” bank and with that single action improves all 3 of their approval ratings overnight. THEN he gets Donald Trump to devastate the middle and completely polarize the right so his wife can compete with more competitive and predictable middle runners?

I already knew he was secretly a scaled alien, but at this point I’m willing to believe in Angels and Demons.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

I could sell drugs and pussy better than these fucking scrubs any day.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Soooooo…….

I’m not really specifically talking about your absence Flabby, but I have to say, my point about people focusing on hot button extremist feminism, or arguing over semantics, while ignoring the very real, core principals and arguments of feminists is a big problem with the internet is kind of illustrated in the 3 pages of semantics followed by an unaddressed actual feminist issue. I stand by my assertion that the term SJW is a distraction from real issues, and you’re not aware and informed about actual feminism by addressing arguments like those, but you end up hurting feminism by publicizing and arguing about those extremist issues. It’s funny that you were so defensive of the implication that you slighted feminism explicitly, when my argument is that you inadvertently disparaged feminism. It would imply there are feminist issues you agree with?

Term policing is something a lot of feminists in general do, but if you call it a SJW issue and somehow isolate it from your understanding of feminism, you end up categorizing a lot of people as extremists who are not. I am happy to tell you when you’re using terms wrong, but I’m more of the neckbeard kind of calculated accurate than I am arguing people aught to use terms because they’re nice. It’s moreso, if you’re not trying to piss people off, why be so casual and in many cases, entitled about your lack of understanding. Usually it’s because the person actually hasn’t admitted they’ve got some deeper issues to work out and are defensive of them. Or because they’re unaware of history or events like gamergate and feel unfairly implicated when they were just earnestly sharing their [ignorant] opinions.

In this thread you assumed Gamergate was an issue of extremist feminists making a big deal out of corruption in gaming, which was a big event for feminism in which we would argue a lot of our issues with gaming culture and internet shaming were highlighted in spades, and could not be argued to be fringe elements given the ubiquity and organization of groups who were singling people out. Where there are vague references to groups of feminists who feel some absurd way, there are actually self-proclaimed groups of 10s of 1000s of people organizing to harass people. You read some tweets from people you respect who used the #gamergate tag to talk about corruption in gaming when really they were being defensive and shitty teenage boys about a woman’s naked pictures and the implication that their shit talking message boards were corrosive and destructive. Those tweets probably blamed SJW as a pejorative and made it easier to disregard the discussion. They are not referring to tiny groups of daft feminists that own the pejorative in their titles, they’re talking about their easy button categorization in their head.

So please, pay attention to the issues in general, and beware generalizations.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex Issue

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex Issue

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Well right, same difference. That’s the number they use to track the inflation of the cost of living.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Minimum wage is supposed to match inflation. That’s it’s function. It’s not meant to delineate good jobs from bad jobs. Minimum wage in the US does not match inflation, and so it should be raised. Those republicans that oppose the concept of minimum wage ironically are actually opposing the concept of inflation that they are most likely to be contributors to.

Maximum wage curbs inflation but must be instituted by the lapdogs of those who would have their magnitude of wealth curbed as well, and so is not suggested by these ashamed lap fatties we call corporate politicians. They go on assuring us that somehow paying everyone in our country marginally more is what’s causing inflation, either because they genuinely believe they can get to 2000 pounds and survive, or because they don’t believe they’re that fat.

At some point we have to recognize that the meritocracy is a lie and that the dumbass who actually thinks there’s going to be something to buy once he owns all of the money is going to keep making money because of math not because he’s intelligent or has good foresight.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Okay, so the gist is:

Indie game made by a woman gets a bunch of coverage, starting with some articles that were absolutely feminist slanted. As bigger names in gaming media picked up coverage, there was a big backlash on twitter of threats and attacks on her, some of which revolved around the fact that she was “only” getting coverage because she’s a woman. She goes under the radar for a few months until her ex boyfriend posts a long diatribe about their personal lives, including chat transcripts, and ultimately false claims that she had cheated with a reviewer at Kotaku, and had exchanged money or sexual favors for a positive review score. This was proven false on both practical sense, and just logistical terms of timelines. He never wrote reviews for her game, and they didn’t know eachother the one time he was involved in any decision making regarding her game.

There was a lot of “middle of the road” criticism from “not sexist” gamer bloggers that gave an extensive review of the game, comparing it to other reviews in the industry, and accusing the industry of mass favoritism and a conspiracy by feminists/sjw/what have you, to overtake the gaming journalism industry. The reality is that journalism in general is fickle, and the blog side of the internet had run with the feminist designer slant, and game journalism is always eager to get a more generalized spotlight, and ran with those articles. I don’t even know if I disagree with the idea that the original game wasn’t that noteworthy the same way I’d say Phil Fish is profoundly overrated, but saying that’s a feminist or in Fish’s case a hipster issue, and not just an issue with a young and fickle game design industry is kind of the problem.

So the way people were talking about gamergate was bad then, once it was confirmed by Kotaku that the claims in the dox letter were in every way fabricated, the internet exploded. One side tried to spin it as “ethics in journalism,” which started out as a bold statement, but slowly got whittled down to “They shouldn’t talk about social justice issues in game design articles,” which is neither an ethically relevant point in journalism, nor was that the reason they opposed the original game’s high review score on kotaku in the first place. The original game designer, among several people who came to her defense, has their personal information stolen and uploaded to the internet. Nude photos, information about kids’ schools, travel plans, business documents, client information, and more was spread, causing businesses to close, people to lose jobs, and entire websites to shut down, none of which was due to corruption, but because private information was publicized.

Then in the ensuing months, teenagers sitting in their basements who hate women and love videogames touted the #Gamergate tag either genuinely because they read nothing about it and just wanted a fight to join in on, or because they were disingenuous trolls who wanted to further the turmoil and stir the pot. People were DoSed, lies were constructed about people using truths so that the person had to share their entire lives to clarify the story well after the damage had been done. Multiple events and conventions were shut down because of death threats and shooting scares. The estimated loss of income for the gaming journalism industry was widely varied, but all of the reports were significant.

An angry boyfriends fake revenge porn attempt to slander his ex mobilized a social campaign of “gamers” who feel as though women are ruining videogames and your interpretation of the event was that “SJWs” provoked a feminist issue where there wasn’t one.

The moderates of both sides need to be compared here. Gamers at the time were using the term #Gamergate an saying we need more accountability in games journalism, some of the articles having nothing to do with the original issue and instead picking up older instances of actual review score manipulation. If they did address the feminist issues, they said “SJWs oppose Lara Croft without understanding the nuance in her puzzle platformers.” They weren’t addressing the criticisms of feminists, but defending their intentions and equating people failing to recognize those intentions with fringe crazies. To make the issue even worse, they defended these unrelated and uninvolved posts by saying “I’m not threatening women, so I am not sexist.”

Feminists were suggesting that maybe this reaction in gaming kind of proves that the overall culture in gaming needs to work on its acceptance of women and its understanding of gender issues. They pointed out how the same people that are threatening to rape females in the games industry are using the hashtag #Gamergate as those defending Lara Croft, as those who wanted to talk about conspiracy in games journalism and reviews. They pointed out that, if gamers wanted to talk about corruption and bias in games, why not investigate the pervasive misogyny and other actually studied and statistically significant issues, but were addressed with that same #Gamergate tag.

“Gamers” aren’t bad guys. There aren’t a shitty subsection of gamers that need to be shot and killed either. Gaming in general needs to grow when it comes to social issues. Feminists aren’t ruining free speech. There isn’t a subsection of feminists that are the bane of society. Feminists in general can sometimes be authoritarian and uncompromising with their expectations on society, and should keep freedoms and their importance in mind. These are nuanced, intelligent ways of addressing arguments you oppose. Labeling and disregarding is easy, but doesn’t develop your argument.

The term SJW is not a coherent one. It’s an isolation of things people demonize about feminism so they don’t have to consider reasonable problems feminists bring up. When I say reasonable, consider for a second that we feminists as a whole have had internal intellectual debates and believe these are reasonable points, and people outside of that group still call us SJWs for it. I do not deny there’s a great swath of feminists who really really make it hard for me to teach people, but I’d argue more than half of them are just like I was in this thread: Angry about how generalizations like “SJW” afford people who are otherwise uninvolved the right to an opinion.

[Made some edits after reading through the wikipedia for gamergate, which is actually one of the best wiki entries for a subtle social event online I’ve read. I mentioned Phil Fish here and didn’t even know that him leaving game design was because of Gamergate and now I actually think Gamergate did something good :D]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Ok you do so…and when I wake up I’ll give the other short paper (rollseyes) side.

I know we don’t like each other, but I do prefer it when you’re not making false accusations against me. So once again, thanks for the somewhat round-about apology.

I genuinely didn’t realize I had said you painted all of feminists that way, and I know what I was trying to say in that post, (that you inadvertently end up painting all feminists this way) and it got muddled with my actual point which results in the same argument, so it only enraged me. It is something that happens with us, and I think it’s a combination of our personality quirks not matching up. I say a lot, and I am trying to get a general concept across because I don’t actually know technically enough to make a concise point, one of my offhand, couched ways of making the point triggers your need for definitions and actualities, and we get caught in a spiral of “ACTUALLY I DIDN’T” and “I DONT CARE IF I SAID THAT, LISTEN TO WHAT I MEAN NOT WHAT I SAY.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Like people were sexually violated and had their lives threatened. The opinions involved are going to sound extreme, but that doesn’t mean all of the opinions involved can be disregarded, and if you want to have an opinion about it, please know what you’re talking about. I get the earnest intentions in your post, but it’s seriously enraging to hear someone talk about an issue you know a lot about with such armchair authority. I am the king of armchair generalists so I’ve learned how to tactfully talk about things I’m still unfamiliar with, but I can still look like a complete asshole and whine when a new group doesn’t immediately consider my observations a unique new perspective and tells me to fuck off.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

So instead of getting angry and illustrating why the above post is problematic, which it absolutely is and anyone who gets angry at it has totally a right to, I’m going to explain this to you.

But it’s not anyone’s right. And people get to be angry. It doesn’t invalidate their arguments. A person who told you right now “Well that’s because you didn’t read anything but the extreme headlines about it, and instead of hearing what us feminists had to say, grouped the issue as a fringe one and we were yet again silenced by people’s ignorance.” you’d get defensive about not opposing feminism when, from their perspective, you absolutely are.

Give me a minute to write a short paper (rollseyes), or find the right, less subjectively feminist side of the gamergate controversy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

But you realize I’m still making a claim that results in the same thing you oppose, right? That you use the word SJW to avoid addressing feminist issues you disagree with? A claim we can argue about because I’m not suggesting you explicitly said this, but that it’s why you use the term? Can you appreciate that is what I have been actually trying to say, and what I actually want to argue about because it’s relevant to my values and improving both of us? I poorly wrote a point that accidentally implied you said as much explicitly, but I am suggesting more specifically that using the term SJW is not useful and is indicative of avoidance of issues. That’s my argument, not that you said it, not that you were making that argument, that maybe you pathologically do that, and to investigate that possibility by talking about actual issues, like Gamergate, where you felt justified in assigning blame to the demonized version of feminism that is “SJWs.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I think sexist and racist people are far more of a bane on society than extremist feminists [that you paint all of feminism as.]

I absolutely mispoke in this post. I was trying to link the point about your outrage at “SJW” to the likelihood that you probably disagree with issues feminists wouldn’t consider fringe. I apologize for this incorrect addition which I did not harp on nor was the point nor hedge on my argument. I did not mean to mislead anyone into believing you are opposed to feminism and was not lying, and I think I made that very clear in my rebuts to your implication that I did. Allow me to correct my intended statement?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Can someone who has kids explain my point coherently in a way where he has to be creative if he wants to repeat himself again?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Or maybe you have issues with certain feminist arguments, just like I have issues with certain feminist arguments, and I’m imploring you to improve feminism by arguing about the issues and not generalizing them so they can be disregarded. You’re either not part of the feminist movement enough to make concise and informed statements about it or you would’ve, or you’re opposed to things we in the wider feminist community would identify with, not consider fringe, and would like to specifically argue with you about. Which is it?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
It’s not just a few bad apples in the SJW movement that are the problem. Look at how that community reacted to Gamergate.

I disagree with your opinions about gamergate. I identify as a feminist who considers gamergate a clear example of patriarchy in gamers. Does that automatically categorize me as a SJW here, or does it make me a feminist who defends gamergate, I’m having a hard time mouthbreathing this one?

(I already made this point earlier, so if you reply to it now assuming we’ve moved on somehow, you’re “lying.”)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

SJW are the bane of society.

Really? Nevermind that using a colloquially insulting term for a vast group of people with various opinions is pretty much a meaningless statement about your prejudices, let’s just say you were referring to people who bring up social justice issues. They’re the bane of society? You can’t think of anyone thing or people that impacts society in more profoundly negative ways than people complaining on the internet? Do you seriously think that’s a useful contribution to any discussion and not just you disregarding something you’d rather not deal with? Normally I wouldn’t humor such a useless post, but you’re honestly a lot smarter than you want to seem and you’re a self-proclaimed logical atheist, so I feel responsible for my teammate’s portrayal in a different topic.

By the way everyone, this is where I was a spineless liar, implying FlabbyWoofWoof disparaged feminism in this thread. I have to prove he disparaged feminism before he’ll respond to the points in this post, or the ones where I predicted why he had this complex and suggested how he’d defend it. I really aught to give people more grace to move past their defense mechanisms. Instead I unfortunately tie it to my position which, of course, I believe is true.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Remember when you insisted for 3 pages that the term “atheist” meant “gnostic atheist” and I was an idiot for saying otherwise, and then the entire internet disagreed with you and in no way related to the actual debate we were having about the priory of people’s actions and their philosophies? What fucking wars are you winning with these posts but the ability to define the world how you want it to be instead of addressing what’s actually there with your unique perspective and understandings?