theDreamer wrote:1) Butthurt contains none of the vitrol of "moneyfag." In much of my life, the largest insult you could lay on someone was the insinuation they were gay, either with the word "queer," or, even more powerfully, "f-a-g" which is censored on this forums for such a reason.
I guess I've not argued very clearly. I'm not claiming that the article isn;t insulting. It definitely is. The term 'moneyfag' is intended to be insulting, without being homophobic.
2) You want some parts of your article that sound like an attack (either as insult or slander?)
The Wiki wrote:Kathleen De Vere (Lady_Kathleen, The Token Girl)
...Do I need to explain how this is sexist? Aside from the fact it's blatantly false (Tally, for example, maintains a strong presence with the LRR crew, and in their history, they have had plenty of other female cast members), it's demeaning to Kathleen. It implies she exists for no reason other than to be "the female" and doesn't contribute anything of her own to the group.
You literally used "female" as an insult. Congratulations.
No I didn't.
To call someone the 'token x' is commentary on the medium/genre/society/culture they're in. It's not sexist at all. It is insulting for a reason you're not stating, which is that it implies she might not have been the most qualified for the job.
The reason I used it, which seems pretty straight forward to me, is that videogame journalism/shows are tipped towards the male side. It's basically a really obvious joke.
The Wiki wrote:works for The Escapist
Works with. She works for Loadingreadyrun, and I believe has a day job. Loadingreadyrun works
with the Escapist to create (hopefully) entertaining videos. She also works with Penny Arcade for a similar goal.
The Wiki wrote:When not acting in patronizing, exacerbating performances she tries her hand at moneyfaggery and censorship.
I'm going to ignore your description of her performance, because that's your business.
However, "Moneyfaggery" is defined, according to your wiki as
The Wiki wrote:A moneyfag is a Content Creator who makes videos to profit financially and to not entertain.
This, again, is blatantly false. Loadingreadyrun has been making videos for 7 years. Only the last 2 has anyone been able to make money off it at any level beyond "paying for LRR." Even if Kathleen was one of this small group, which I don't believe she is, Loadingreadyrun has not changed it's style of content.
So either: they are now making videos to make money AND entertain (from previously only making to entertain), or they have always been making videos to NEVER entertain.
And if you were making videos to not entertain, and weren't making money, would you continue for 5 years?
I would say that perhaps the LRR skit show has stayed the same in quality, however DailyDrop - Unskippable and ENN are all new shows. Thats where your argument falls down. The "moneyfaggery" was linked to, where Kathleen goes on and on about money and how it becomes obvious that it isn't compensation, but profit which they seek. Now thats fine and if you like their videos go enjoy yourself, its still moneyfaggery.
So no, I don't think you're displaying the whole story.
Furthermore, before they started making money, you wouldn't have made such a claim. You might have, and been welcome to have, said they "weren't entertaining," but never would have said "they were made with the intention to not entertain." Unless it was a Borington video, in which case, yes, those weren't meant to be entertaining.
To be honest that definition of money faggery is new. It wasn;t up when I linked to the article and I disagree with it. Daily Drop is moneyfaggery, sure its designed to an extent to entertain, but its still moneyfaggery. So I'll jump on the wiki and sort that definition out.
Next we have your case on "censorship."
The Wiki wrote:Censorship is an attempt to conceal information, art, entertainment or opinions.
Well, you've said yourself that Theremin wouldn't be welcomed on your forums, so that's censorship. However, he's welcome here, as are you. Who is a moderator here? Kathleen you say? I am amazed at her lack of censoring.
I'm not. I hardly think the LRR crew would want to ban a long time member for swearing at someone who rudely critiqued them. (well to an extent I actually have a higher opinion of the LRR crew)
Furthermore, you cite as a reason for her censorship specifically her asking people to not use ad blockers. That's not concealing information, art, entertainment (or attempted entertainment) or opinions.
Actually that thread had a lot of people getting banned, and she was asking people not to talk about ad blockers. That's the Escapists official policy (discussion of adblock will net punishment). So they are, in fact, censoring people. Look in the thread.
If, however, you wanted to cite that as "moneyfaggery" (despite the fact that ads don't make enough money to pay for any more than possibly breaking even on hosting), then perhaps I might agree with you. But in the end, it's more slander and lies. It should be noted your wiki has ad space, as does the main page.
Go call monty a moneyfag and see if he cares. His ads are minimal and non-intrusive in my opinion. But he already receives a lot of flack from us over everything. They're not MY ads, I get nothing from them. If someone chooses to block those ads we won't ban them. Thats censorship and moneyfaggory.
The bulk of the History section has either been previous addressed, or could possibly be seen as funny by some, and is not so blatant.
wicked
The Wiki wrote:According to Kathleen, their work on these low quality shows are of the same value to society as life-saving doctors.
That is not what she said. She said "Doctors get paid, so should we." Using the term "same value" implies that that she should be paid as much as a life-saving doctor, which I think is a silly thing to put into her mouth.
Also, for the sake of accuracy, she's from New Zealand, not Canada.
I'll fix that up, cheers.
Nah, from memory she doesn't really say that. Check the thread, her implications are hazy at best within the actual context. Still, I guess I'll review it and if I'm wrong fix it.
Now this post below is a perfect example of what I was talking about. It doesn't contribute to discussion. He's asking me to speak about and justify myself, rather than the topic at hand. To an extent he's confusing and muddling issues. Still, guess I'll give him the time of day; seeing as he spent time responding to me.
The Jester wrote:I've never understood what it is about being unpleasant that's so funny/amusing. I mean pure, unadulterated bile here, not The Young Ones slapstick.
I
respectfully disagree.
What purpose does being confrontational with everyone who speaks to you serve? Why must criticism always be presented unpleasantly? Is it really so impossible to mix it with politeness (answer; no. See Neil Gaiman)?
Well Rabid was perfectly polite, I'm just a different sort of arguer. The way I see it, if I come in here and act subservient and polite and pull punches I won't have time to get my points across. Sure I've been rude, but then I haven't exactly waltzed into the middle of my Welcoming party have I?
Since when has simple rebuttal been sufficient to constitute cogent debate? Why is it so necessary to prove oneself "right", instead of letting differences in opinion lie? Since when has strident presentation of opinion been indistinguishable from the opposite of lies (implied; truth)?
You guys tell me, you're the one's calling me out for my opinions.
When an opinion is about me or something I have done I think its fair, if not expected, for me to put my viewpoint across.
Stinkychops, you also fail to take into account the fact that we're [b][b]all[/b][/b] fond of Theremin to varying degrees here, and therefore are willing to provide him some leeway.
I just wanted to hear you guys actually say it was favouritism. An admittance of bias makes it no more reasonable.
That's just how he is sometimes, and we like him for or despite it.
Glad to see you talking on behalf of the hive mind. Wouldn;t want to judge posts by themselves. No sirree. Double standards are where it's at these days.
You, on the other hand, are a stranger. One who, furthermore, is a professed and demonstrable critic (or perhaps put more simply enemy) of LRR. Is it not natural, therefore, that we would cut him more slack? Is he wrong in asserting that we can gain nothing from attempting debate with you?
So criticising a group of 'entertainers' who you like, makes me your enemy? That's reasonable.
Now sure, he's insulted you and called you names, but one of the things we learn in playgrounds and schools is that one should rise above such petty insults and be and speak better than that. So far you have only reciprocated, and it hurts your credibility and throws your emotional maturity into doubt. Please, prove me wrong.
That's why I haven't responded to him. I like the way you pretend I'm leading him on. I haven't reciprocated... I haven't cussed at anyone. I'd like you to accept that. Questioning my 'Emotional maturity' (which is nonsense to begin with, intellectualising emotions is in fact a form of neurosis) implies you can tell my emotional state. Which throws your intellectual capabilities into doubt, if you don't mind me saying.
Your entire post is a passive aggressive have-at-you. You're trying to fan some non-existent flames. If you have nothing of any merit to say, it doesn't matter how eloquently you speak.
Would you care to discuss the topic at hand or do you want to keep trying to lecture me?
I'm kind of a big deal.
