Messages

Lovecraft isn't a hack, but he has various issues with his writing.

Yeah, I was wondering about this. Lovecraft has an exceptional horror imagination, but he's not really a particularly good writer. (Or at least, he wasn't to begin with.) Translating his over-wrought prose and phrases like, "nighted, penguin-fringed abyss," must be quite frustrating.

Yes, originally the module would cause a fatal crash on Linux, so it was disabled by default. But, as you can see, that line is now commented out. Frankly I have no idea what the problem is. The module doesn't do anything fancy in terms of scrolling. It just decides where to setviewport based on the co-ordinates of a particular character. So I can't see why that wouldn't work on Linux.

I'm afraid I don't have a Linux OS here to test it on. But I would try to narrow down the cause of the problem. Does setting *targetCharacter in the script succeed (i.e. the pointer is changed to cCharacter2, but the screen doesn't move)? Or does it fail for some reason and the pointer stays set to cCharacter1?

For instance, if you modify game_start in the module to:

Code: ags

function game_start(){
  if (cEgo.Room == TEST ROOM)  targetCharacter = cCharacter2;
  else targetCharacter = player;
  
  system.vsync=true;
}
(Pseudocode)

And run the room, does it follow the other character instead?

["the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light"]

online anonymity that allows people like Ali to throw around some pretty foul things without a worry in the world.

I'm not anonymous. Ali is short for Alasdair Beckett-King. It's pretty rich being accused of abuse by someone who has repeatedly excused and diminished abuse directed towards women. The idea that calling people homophobic slurs is the same as calling people with far-right politics "fascists" is laughable. I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but you did once lament that "the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light". And that is, unequivocally, foul.

EDIT: In response to your question below, my comment about the Metaphorical Logic of Rape explains why I think your attitude excuses abusers and blames victims.

What I tried to point out was that the actions of the few were tainting the view of the whole group, when that is not fair or reasonable. Such correlations just tend to be what we human beings do. See for example: someone shoots up a school = all gun owners come under scrutiny.

You've done it again. My bad opinions are a consequence of being acted upon by outside forces. These women's bad behaviour has tainted my view of the group. No. I am responsible for the views I hold. If I blame one person for what another did, that's my error.

BTW, which part of the picture of a woman with bare arms the most abusive? Is it the elbows?

EDIT: In response to WHAM's comment below. I clearly said "my" and not "your". I didn't say your view of women was tainted - although I think that it is, evidenced by your reasoning around women and your generalisations about "females". You are, consciously or unconsciously, diminishing and obscuring sexism and prejudice, and that's what was criticising. It may be "what we human beings do", but we also do infanticide and cannibalism, so I'm not interested in arguments from nature.

The appearance of so-called "twitch-thots" along with other camgirl services has given rise to phenomenon such as FinDom and other forms of abuse that is harmful to the viewers, which happen to be primarily young lonely men, because those happen to play a lot of videogames. (Because the majority of women tend to view gaming as a negative thing rather than as a fun hobby, oddly enough.)

I think this is very revealing. There's a really interesting article written by psychologists in the 80s called The Metaphorical Logic of Rape, which I should warn has disturbing content. But I implore anyone with an interest to read it, because it's fascinating and relevant. Saying that women are "abusing" men by being sexy on a gaming website isn't literal. Just like when we say a woman is "a knock-out" we don't literally mean she knocked us out. But an unwitting consequence of these linguistic choices is that they allow us to significantly re-configure sequences of events in reality.

- I'm not sexually attracted to this woman - this woman is DOING SOMETHING to me with her sexuality.
- I'm not choosing to watch this Twitch stream - the women running this twitch stream is ABUSING me with her sexuality.

The woman becomes the instigator, and men's actions - arousal, harassment or, more mildly, a refusal to believe in girl gamers - become much more reasonable reactions. Instead of holding Person A responsible for their actions, it seems much more reasonable to hold Person A's victim responsible. After all, the victim started it. The bad girl gamers ruined the reputation of girl gamers. The bad immigrants ruined the reputation of immigrants. The women haters and racists are no longer instigators of abuse, they're simply reacting.

This is all perfectly logical, and can be presented cooly and clearly by someone like WHAM. But it diverges from reality as much as Jack's conspiratorial mutterings. And it's much more dangerous, because it sounds so reasonable.

EDIT: To avoid clogging up the thread by replying to WHAM:

Yes, cases of online bullying and exploitation are actually abusive - even when women do them. But you've conflated:

- Women who actually exploit people online
- Women on twitch
- And girl gamers.

You've allowed yourself to squeeze all those groups into one. You're holding all of them responsible for what a minority do, and you're justifying abuse directed towards any of them.

..it amazes me that people still question "girl gamers."

The reason for that can be seen pretty easily if you go on a game streaming site like Twitch, which has basically turned into a loosely game-affiliated softcore porn site thanks to a relatively small number of women abusing audiences of young males.

Do you mean women-abusing? Or are you saying women on Twitch are abusing young men?

I love Yahtzee's games, but I've never kept up with his YouTube stuff. It's silly that I wouldn't have thought of him as a "comedian". But it totally makes sense to think of people like him and Neil Cicierega / Trapezoid (formerly of this parish) that way.

By the way, Ali. When are you gonna be on ComComPod? IIRC Stuart did mention your name on the show a number of episodes ago.

Never! He's only interviewed a few people who are as new as me - I'm only doing my 2nd solo show this year. Most of Stu's more recent guests have been doing solo shows for decades!

I'm not up to date with comcompod right now because I've been listening to Rule of Three, which is a great new-ish podcast about comedy (with a strong British bias). The one with Dara à" Briain about Eddie Izzard is terrific, but most of them aren't about stand-up: https://www.ruleofthreepod.com/

I didn't mean to dominate in this thread, but I think a sensible conversation is difficult when people start seriously defending GamerGate. I haven't identified myself as a "feminist & LGBT rights activist". I'm not an activist, I just hold the (apparently radical) opinion that sexist hate campaigns and the actual Holocaust don't have an upside.

Holding one person responsible for what others do is wrong. If you want an excuse to view feminists & LGBT rights activists negatively, you don't need me to give you one.

EDIT: I can't believe it's necessary to say this, and I can't be bothered to reply to Jack's comments below but - of course I don't support, deny or diminish mass killings by the USSR. Nothing I've said would suggest I do. I just haven't mentioned them because it's not relevant. Whereas WHAM's views are relevant to my observation that the misogyny and double-standards faced by female developers are related to regressive right-wing online extremism.

If it helps, I'm happy to replace "fascist" with the more precise "sexist right-wing authoritarian with fascist leanings".

Here is WHAM saying we should shoot protesters when protests turn violent:

I'd like to ask what is the alternative that civilized societies suggest? Like when the protesters (or "protesters") start breaking property and injure policemen?

There are all sorts of non-lethal ways of dealing with violent protests. Like... Britain isn't the best country, but protests here don't usually end with the police firing live ammunition into crowds. Smashing windows and setting fires is bad. Murdering protesters is what tyrants do.

I would like it to be noted, that me (and maybe Khris) being really aggressive towards WHAM has encouraged him to consider withdrawing from the discussion. This illustrates how people withdraw when they are attacked. It's why we shouldn't attack people for things they have no control over like their sex, gender, race and so on.

I think Snarky and Blondbraid make some great points above. Regarding the "diversity is OK, it's the pandering I hate!" argument - what about all the terribly-written pop culture franchises that pander to straight, white male fantasies? What about all the crappy Stallone and Schwarzenegger films? Why have I literally never heard someone accuse them of pandering?

Here is WHAM saying we should shoot protesters when protests turn violent:

When a peaceful protest turns violent, the truly peaceful protesters, if they have a brain cell between them, will leave the area when the police arrive.
Thus all thats left on the streets are the hoodlums and anarchists. I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".

I quoted you saying you "realize [the Nazis] did good things" and lamenting that "the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light", and you said you stood by those remarks. When Khris calls you a fascist, you wheedlingly imply he's "uncivilised".

You see the good side in fascist regimes, while also advocating murderous authoritarianism.

You're a fascist.

And I'm shocked you haven't been banned from this forum.

As I see it, either you allow criticism or you don't. You don't get to choose whether criticism is allowed based on whether you agree with it.

When I see someone saying complaining about a black Stormtrooper, I say to myself, "well, that's not how I feel about it" and move on with my life.

Criticism is fine. I was talking about abuse and bullying that's designed to discourage feminist or left-wing criticism. As well as being homophobic and transphobic, a number of people in the Facebook thread I mentioned called for the OP to be banned because she posted a video where a trans woman criticised Leisure Suit Larry. So I'm not overly panicked about the 'censorious left'.

We have to agree that there are limits on acceptable discourse if we want to have a worthwhile and respectful conversation. That's why forums have moderators, and why comment sections are hellish.

If our conventions allow the abuse of gay and trans people, but you can't criticise Al Lowe's jokes, then I think we're in trouble. If we tolerate the abuse of people for their sex, sexuality, etc. then some people are driven out of the conversation and we lose their input.

On the other hand, if our conventions say we must be polite in response to "Nazis had their good points," then we're doomed.

It seems impossible to have conversations with people who refuse to engage with reality.

Insubstantial and malicious allegations against women are spun into an absurd "soviet" conspiracy, while *years* of actual, well-documented harassment, and violent misogynist attacks are all being faked by professional victims. It's like talking to flat Earthers, but not fun. I can forgive the sheer stupidity of it, but not the essential lack of compassion.

To address the OP's question, this recent thread from Jessica Price is not encouraging https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1105186403741134849

Holy crap! What is with the sudden spike in hostility!
I haven't seen this kind of shit storm, since Trump was elected. 

The "overcompensation" isn't me saying that women are getting MORE representation. I'm saying that what representation they are getting, is being pushed more.
Am I making sense?

I don't think I was actually rude to you, but it's possible that some of my anger at WHAM for being a fash has spilled over.

I still think what you're saying doesn't make sense. How can "overcompensation" be the right word if women aren't getting MORE representation - at worst, wouldn't that just be "compensation"? What makes it worthy of a hostile backlash? Is it reasonable to hold the victims of hate campaigns responsible for the existence of those hate campaigns?

It's a real shame how this overcompensation for better portrayals of women in media, has led to such a hostile pushback.

This is the same imaginary bad guy again. What "overcompensation?" Are the majority of video game characters women? Are most games marketed towards women? Are the majority of devs women?

You said yourself that women in video games are doing about as well as they used to. So what has the hostile pushback been against? It's been against a small handful of female creators, characters and performers who DARED to try to exist in nerd-bro-land.

Don't worry, friend. I forgive your ignorance. Just please stop saying such nonsense so that we can remain civil.

Fuck you. Of course I'm not going to be civil with someone who uses the phrase ""oh the poor Jews" -bandwagon". Extremely fuck off.

Yes I remember that thread, because I tend to make a note of WHO IS ACTUALLY A NAZI SYMPATHISER.

I don't know what BF5 is. It wasn't me who brought it up.

Jesus Christ, I forgot about this. Here's WHAM complaining that the Holocaust is "seen in a purely negative light".

On one hand there is never a good reason to start a war.
On the other hand there always is a good reason to start a war (For the Nazis it was mostly Lebensraum and international political power)

How I see it, the main reason for the Nazi regime's anti-Jew plans was twofold: Jews were a minority and thus easy to turn into scapegoats to unite the majority of the German people. In addition, in many areas it was the Jew populace that held great sums of money in gold, stocks and investments, and "relieving" these people of their riches was an easy way for the Nazis to fund their plans.

When you dig deep enough, there is always a reason for things like this. Whether or not it's a good or a bad thing depends on who you ask and how well the offender does his job.

If the Nazis had won the war, I highly doubt we would be here, pondering on "the poor Jews" and their misery. However, since the war went the way it did, the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light. No, I am not saying the Holocaus did not happen, nor that it wasn't a terrible thing to do, but what I am trying to do is have historical perspective and neutrality on the subject, instead of jumping on the global "oh the poor Jews" -bandwagon.

You're a fucking fascist.

[criminals are the same species as you and me]

Just to place your non-bigoted opinion in context, WHAM, here is you saying there isn't a moral difference between the Nazis and the allies in WW2:

If the Germans had won "The War" we would be having this exact same conversation, except for the fact that we would replace all swastikas with "stars-and-stripes" or "hammers-and-sicles", and instead of talking about how nazi's were evil, we would be talking about how the communists and capitalists were evil.

Names change, ideas do not.

Here's you saying the Nazis did some good things:

I realize they did bad things, AND I realize they did good things.
Hey, isn't that true for ALL ruling powers in the world?

This Nazi discussion is actually quite pointless, so I will drop it for my part now.
The major difference is that I live in a country that was allied to the Nazis during The War and most of you guys lived, to my understanding, in countries who fought the Nazis.

Here's you saying that criminals aren't really human:

Let me remind you, once again, that criminals are the same species as you and me.

We agree to disagree on this point.

Here's you calling for a "final solution" to criminal elements in our society:

However, the solution (if one exists) is not to just shoot them all and say "problem solved". Just like you wouldnt cut your head off to cure a tooth ache.

What you describe is nuking the city where a criminal is caught, and even I would call that an overblown reaction.
What happens in real life is that the dentist identifies the tooth, realizes it is rotten and pulls it, to relieve the pain and keep any possible infections from spreading...

Sounds like my final solution, doesn't it?

(The criminals in question being the poor, predominantly black London rioters.)

So when I say far-right nutjobs are the ones pushing this regressive anti-women, anti-minority agenda, you chipping in doesn't convince me I'm wrong.

That article makes it clear that accidentally using the wrong pronoun is not going to result in a fine. There's a lot of hysteria around legislation that protects trans people, because bullies like your GamerGate mates love playing the martyr.

Repeatedly and deliberately using the wrong pronoun for someone is bullying. Are the poor bullies being picked on? Boo hoo.

EDIT: Anyway, my point was that the adventure game genre seems to have its share of bigoted dimwits who think they're being victimised by women and minority groups. I'm grateful to Jack for backing me up.

But yeah, so harmful these opinions that people have. But who will make sure the opinions we are allowed to discuss are the safe ones, comrade?

I don't think your stupid opinions are harmful. I think they're stupid. What's harmful are repeated harassment campaigns, led by people who share your opinions, that target women in games.

But Blondbraid is right, your free speech is intact. You can use it to support women-hating crybabies if you want.