Can we talk about the Sonic Social Media outlets for a moment...

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

but they werent even correcting anyone man. they were just suggesting that people RESPECT each other. ugh

[Nepenthe]

That is what i like to call a strawman. Sega isnt going to commit a terrorist attack in the near future. but if they did, the backlash the would recieve would be a lot different.

Your argument that you're making is that by condemning an action you're holding yourself to a higher standard and thus you are at risk of being called hypocritical in case you do the same thing. Okay. But ignoring the fact that this is fallacious thinking (the truth doesn't change due to the character of the person saying it), Sega has never seriously told anyone they're an idiot for liking or disliking a game that they hold the opposite opinion towards, just as they've never committed a terrorist attack. So what are you talking about?

[Vertekins]

It's not an "opinion" when you're bashing someone for simply enjoying a game because, get this, enjoyment is subjective and bashing is not an opinion. You can't resort to the "Opinions are holy and uncontestable!" as defence because not only are they not any of those things, bashing is not an "opinion".

Seriously, if you're the sort of person to class someone as 'delusional' for enjoying something, the mere action of which not even affecting you on any level, then you're the intolerant douchebag and someone whose reaching beyond your station, not the dude who called you out for saying it.

[PandoloFox]

Your argument that you're making is that by condemning an action you're holding yourself to a higher standard and thus you are at risk of being called hypocritical. Okay. But Sega has literally never seriously told anyone they're an idiot for liking or disliking a game they're hold the opposite opinion towards, just as they've never committed a terrorist attack. So what are you talking about?

Thank you for answering me, and thats a good point and i wont deny it. But all they have to do is make a mistake by associeting with a pesron that is known for these things and a lot of people might question them. Is it their fault or their responsibility? No, but since they dont accept this kind of behaviour supporting people that arnt behaving well isnt exactly favorable. Anyway, i just thinks its a bad idea because of this. im not saying that it will happen.

Edited December 14, 2015 by PandoloFox

[Nepenthe]

Companies do deals and promotions with people all the time who surprise the public by turning out to be assholes, and when those companies pull away from them and out of any sponsorships they have with that person, they attain positive PR. What you're talking about isn't a realistic problem.

[Tara]

Sigh, if you are strictly saying that my sentence could be percieved in numerous ways, then why didnt you simply ask me then? If you have to say that i meant that Aaron was above people then i would have had to make that perfectly clear, right? You are now debating that i didnt. Then you comming up with what i meant is an assumption.

You're showing an unwarranted level of smugness for someone who has no idea what is even going on.

The debate which sparked this conversation started when you said that by telling people that you disapprove of their words or actions, you are placing yourself on "higher standards," which literally everyone in this thread debated under the rightful assumption that you meant as a person or in regards to the moral standing of another person.  Why?  Because the way you framed your sentence was said as such.  If I said "Nepenthe likes cutting people," it would not be irrational for people to believe that I meant she enjoyed literally slicing human flesh, even though I meant that she likes hanging out with people who perform the act of cutting.  Because that's how the English language works.  I didn't say that your sentence could be perceived in numerous ways, because it couldn't.  That's not how the English language works on a colloquial level.  Why would I ask what you meant when my entire lifetime of speaking English has led me to believe that this set of words in this order refers to one specific thing?  If you want to call that an "assumption," then that is the bare minimum definition, no more an unreasonable assumption than assuming that the keys I'm typing on this keyboard will probably output letters corresponding to the ones printed on the face of the buttons.

Despite your own demands for a quote, you have yet to show me where I said that you said that Aaron was "above people," assuming I'm even understanding you correctly.  I never made a statement on your opinion of Aaron Webber.  I merely made a reply based on what I understood you to have said, which is that calling out bad behavior puts yourself on a higher pedestal.  This translated to pretty much every other member here that you were accusing Aaron Webber and by extension Sega of arrogance.  That they were trying to put themselves up on a moral high horse, so to speak.

Then you retorted that you meant in terms language, and I merely said that this information was never brought up before, meaning a vital piece of your argument was missing, so it should not be expected that anyone would reply based on what this primarily-English speaking forum thought you meant based on their lifetimes of speaking English.  I made no accusations that your intent was not important.  You made that assumption yourself.

i said that correcting people on the internet for their opinions is a bad idea because if the themselves screw up. they would recieve a lot more backlash. 

See, I understand this point, although I don't necessarily agree.  If that's what you meant to say, fair enough, but the entire framing of your argument was, frankly, rather poor.

With that said, while I'm not denying there will be some petty people out there, the internet has a surprisingly short memory span.  They forget things in like a week and I'm actually surprised that the tweet that started this whole debacle was even brought up to begin with.  Let alone in some asinine attempt at provoking a sociopolitically-motivated flame war.

[PandoloFox]

Companies do deals and promotions with people all the time who surprise the public by turning out to be assholes, and when those companies pull away from them and out of any sponsorships they have with that person, they attain positive PR. What you're talking about isn't a realistic problem.

 

 They have as i said promoted game grumps which are very known for hating on sonic games on purpose ( also telling adventure fans that they are wrong for liking sa 1 ) Yet, nobody seems to care. well, i do and some other people. but most are just blindly singing along with Aaron because he is "savage". So yes, what im saying wont realisticaly happen in any way possible since:

A. People wont care

B. Aaron would pull out

But saying that they would attain posetive Pr campaigne? I dont know. Lets use your strawman again. If they were associated with terrorists and pulled out, would people not question them? Being found out and pulling out isnt exactly the same as being innocent.

You're showing an unwarranted level of smugness for someone who has no idea what is even going on.

The debate which sparked this conversation started when you said that by telling people that you disapprove of their words or actions, you are placing yourself on "higher standards," which literally everyone in this thread debated under the rightful assumption that you meant as a person or in regards to the moral standing of another person.  Why?  Because the way you framed your sentence was said as such.  If I said "Nepenthe likes cutting people," it would not be irrational for people to believe that I meant she enjoyed literally slicing human flesh, even though I meant that she likes hanging out with people who perform the act of cutting.  Because that's how the English language works.  I didn't say that your sentence could be perceived in numerous ways, because it couldn't.  That's not how the English language works on a colloquial level.  Why would I ask what you meant when my entire lifetime of speaking English has led me to believe that this set of words in this order refers to one specific thing?  If you want to call that an "assumption," then that is the bare minimum definition, no more an unreasonable assumption than assuming that the keys I'm typing on this keyboard will probably output letters corresponding to the ones printed on the face of the buttons.

Despite your own demands for a quote, you have yet to show me where I said that you said that Aaron was "above people," assuming I'm even understanding you correctly.  I never made a statement on your opinion of Aaron Webber.  I merely made a reply based on what I understood you to have said, which is that calling out bad behavior puts yourself on a higher pedestal.  This translated to pretty much every other member here that you were accusing Aaron Webber and by extension Sega of arrogance.  That they were trying to put themselves up on a moral high horse, so to speak.

Then you retorted that you meant in terms language, and I merely said that this information was never brought up before, meaning a vital piece of your argument was missing, so it should not be expected that anyone would reply based on what this primarily-English speaking forum thought you meant based on their lifetimes of speaking English.  I made no accusations that your intent was not important.  You made that assumption yourself.

See, I understand this point, although I don't necessarily agree.  If that's what you meant to say, fair enough, but the entire framing of your argument was, frankly, rather poor.

With that said, while I'm not denying there will be some petty people out there, the internet has a surprisingly short memory span.  They forget things in like a week and I'm actually surprised that the tweet that started this whole debacle was even brought up to begin with.  Let alone in some asinine attempt at provoking a sociopolitically-motivated flame war.

Thats fine, Im not a native english speaker, im not blind to the fact that others might misunderstand my points.

Though i never said "placing" I said "hold yourself to a higher standard" I thought that this meant that there are actions you just wouldnt do. Not that you think others are beneath you.

Edited December 14, 2015 by PandoloFox

[Nepenthe]

Game Grumps is a YouTube comedy channel with multiple people of differing opinions on it that has the cultural sway of anime, eg., no one gives a shit because they are not worth giving a shit about in the grand scheme of media to bother making a big deal about some tenuous philosophical contradiction between the two in order to shit on Aaron and Sega for having the audacity to give out sound advice.

And the only way Sega would get torn apart by being connected to a terrorist group is if it were proven that they were knowingly aiding any individual or group's operations which is the actual context I was operating the metaphor in, a metaphor which I don't know why you're bringing back up in this manner since you've already agreed to the point that metaphor was made to explain. Like, you know how reasonable people don't mess with the family members of mass murderers, because despite their association to that person it's not assumed that they actually knew anything about it until they got caught? This happens all the time in terms of PR disasters. No one blames the company for being involved with someone who turned out shitty unless the company was reasonably proven to have known beforehand that the person was awful. So no, no one would look at Sega for accidentally hiring a KKK member or something, if they came out and said this person's history didn't come up on their radar and they made concessions to the public.

Again, none of this shit is remotely realistic with which to be bashing Aaron over the head with. And let me be clear about this conclusion: We have managed to turn a benign statement about tolerance of different opinions about harmless art- stuff people on SSMB have been preaching for years- into a dumb argument about social justice and hypocrisy and ridiculous hypothetical scenarios simply because one guy at Sega said it. This is mindblowing and it's why the fandom actually sucks.

[Vertekins]

Ah! Now I understand what is at the heart of this Pandolo - Your persecution complex, like many other SA3 Facebook members who say that they're poor, discriminated-against Adventure fans; Sonic Twitter promotes the Boom sub-series you all so despise and has "promoted" Game Grumps, of whom Arin dislikes your precious Adventure games. No need to dress it up as anything else because I can see right through it, having continually observed EXACTLY this sort of behavior on the SA3 Facebook page and them slagging-off this very forum when we called-out your reasoning in this topic.,

That's all this boils down to isn't it? Try to find any sort of beef with the Sonic Twitter no matter how gratuitous and misguided in order to justify your feelings against it because Aaron isn't conforming to what you want him to do i.e Publically slag-off Boom despite being a PR guy who in all likelihood wouldn't be allowed to do that.

And you wonder why your page is the laughing stock of the intelligent Sonic fan communities...

[PandoloFox]

Ah! Now I understand what is at the heart of this Pandolo - Your persecution complex, like many other SA3 Facebook members who say that they're poor, discriminated-against Adventure fans; Sonic Twitter promotes the Boom sub-series you all so despise and has "promoted" Game Grumps, of whom Arin dislikes your precious Adventure games. No need to dress it up as anything else because I can see right through it, having continually observed EXACTLY this sort of behavior on the SA3 Facebook page and them slagging-off this very forum when we called-out your reasoning in this topic.,

That's all this boils down to isn't it? Try to find any sort of beef with the Sonic Twitter no matter how gratuitous and misguided in order to justify your feelings against it because Aaron isn't conforming to what you want him to do i.e Publically slag-off Boom despite being a PR guy who in all likelihood wouldn't be allowed to do that.

And you wonder why your page is the laughing stock of the intelligent Sonic fan communities...

I mentioned my own dislike, yes, though i dont have anything that you are describing. And im getting a bit sick of people jumping on my personality all the time.

[Nepenthe]

There's no need to bring this argument into the realm of attacking people's character based on their offsite dealings unless they are the actual point to the discussion at hand.

[Vertekins]

Apologies. I just get so irate at Aaron getting attacked left, right and center for the stupidest of reasons.

[PandoloFox]

Anyway, now when people actualy understood me it has been a nice chat. i will concede on this topic.

[shdowhunt60]

Apologies. I just get so irate at Aaron getting attacked left, right and center for the stupidest of reasons.

Which is why I'd never want to be in such a position as him. People are assholes, and no matter what, there's going to be someone who disagrees with you for the most asinine of reasons. I have my personal disagreements with how he does things, but I'm not going to sit there and question his character based on fuck-all, and act like he's a terrible person, because he does something I don't like.

[PandoloFox]

Attacking Aaron? I have never done that, i leave him alone. I only talk about my thoughts when we have topics such as this one. I just dont agree with some things he is doing and i am expressing that. I might be wrong at some points which im grown enough to admitt, but some of the backlash i recieve because of misunderstandments and language barriers doesnt make it easy for me to answer. hell, i loose my cool at times too, it happens.

[PandoloFox]

But since i have been called out for misusing the english language, I might as well ask how i should have sentenced it.

"When correcting others you are holding yourself to a higher standard"

From what i know, this would mean that you are above the things you are correcting. Not that you are above the people you are correcting.

But apparently this means to everyone here that you are above others as a person. I dont see it, but everyday is a learning experience.

To begin with, i would like an explanation to just how my sentence is saying "you are above others as a person". Then i would like an example of how i should have sentenced it.

Keep in mind that this is a request, you dont have to do it.

 

[Nepenthe]

The reason everyone in this topic thought you were making a comparison between people is because people are the only direct object of the verbs you used. "When correcting others you are holding yourself to a higher standard." There is literally nothing in the sentence that implies you are discussing objectionable actions. Ergo the direct reading of this sentence is not that "you" are holding yourself above the things being corrected, but the people being corrected. 

And honestly, there's no way to salvage that sentence alone with what you meant to say. You would've had to have said something to the tune of "When people are arguing against bad things, they set themselves up for hypocrisy."

[PandoloFox]

The reason everyone in this topic thought you were making a comparison between people is because people are the only direct object of the verbs you used. "When correcting others you are holding yourself to a higher standard." There is literally nothing in the sentence that implies you are discussing objectionable actions. Ergo the direct reading of this sentence is not that "you" are holding yourself above the things being corrected, but the people being corrected. 

And honestly, there's no way to salvage that sentence alone with what you meant to say. You would've had to have said something to the tune of "When people are arguing against bad things, they set themselves up for hypocrisy."

Hmm, I see. You are saying that because i am not mentioning the actual actions that the person is above, people will naturaly read it as being above others.

So just to make sure i understand. If i tell a person that i have higher standards than him. Would i then be saying that i am above him, or will there be subtle differences?

Edited December 14, 2015 by PandoloFox

[Nepenthe]

You are saying you are above that person because you're comparing yourself to them.

[PandoloFox]

You are saying you are above that person because you're comparing yourself to them.

So, from what i have gathered here. You can not compare your own standards to another persons standards without telling them that you are above them. Is this right? The usage of the word "standard" can only be used when comparing objects to each other. If another person disagrees with your standards he is right in doing so because no standard is actualy more correct.

[PandoloFox]

Lets see here. 

I have higher standards regarding cars than you.
Toyotas are made with a higher standard in mind than your average car.

^Correct way of using this word?



 

[J&/MA/MC]

OK, let me explain here for a moment.

That statement in itself is already nice and little uplifting. The problem relies in its source, because it's so obviously from a critics standpoint. But it' not. It's from the artist standpoint now which makes that statement essentially as empty and meaningless as a white man giving an #AllLivesMatter speech. As far as the hierarchy between artist and critic, Sonic have no say what makes a good opinion and a bad one. And he hasn't followed up that very well, because the opinions he's been listening to since that has been the least thought-provoking ones. How about a twitter exchange between Sonic and FemFreq for once? That would be interesting to say the least. So yeah, Sonic hasn't earned that statement so far.   

[Ripe]

OK, let me explain here for a moment.

That statement in itself is already nice and little uplifting. The problem relies in its source, because it's so obviously from a critics standpoint. But it' not. It's from the artist standpoint now which makes that statement essentially as empty and meaningless as a white man giving an #AllLivesMatter speech. As far as the hierarchy between artist and critic, Sonic have no say what makes a good opinion and a bad one. And he hasn't followed up that very well, because the opinions he's been listening to since that has been the least thought-provoking ones. How about a twitter exchange between Sonic and FemFreq for once? That would be interesting to say the least. So yeah, Sonic hasn't earned that statement so far.   

Honestly, I am the only one who think this doesn't explain anything?

I mean, are you saying that Sonic twitter has no right to tell people that respecting others opinios is a good thing because it comes from this so-called "artist standpoint"? And is Sonic twitter said anything about good and bad opinions? I think that asking people to respect other opinions is a common sense and not something to complain about unless you think that the mindset is wrong. And again, where is the evidence to your claims?

And you are also saying that because I'm a white male my possible speeches about things like universal equality is empty and has no meaning? What the...

[Badnik Mechanic]

OK, let me explain here for a moment.

That statement in itself is already nice and little uplifting. The problem relies in its source, because it's so obviously from a critics standpoint. But it' not. It's from the artist standpoint now which makes that statement essentially as empty and meaningless as a white man giving an #AllLivesMatter speech. As far as the hierarchy between artist and critic, Sonic have no say what makes a good opinion and a bad one. And he hasn't followed up that very well, because the opinions he's been listening to since that has been the least thought-provoking ones. How about a twitter exchange between Sonic and FemFreq for once? That would be interesting to say the least. So yeah, Sonic hasn't earned that statement so far.   

Mmmmmhmmmmm....

And how about you now explain what exactly you wrote instead of... whatever that post was?

I believe you accused the tweet of somehow pandering towards men? Would you care to explain how exactly it does that, or why that tweet is somehow bad... or wrong? 

[PerfectChaos]

Mmmmmhmmmmm....

And how about you now explain what exactly you wrote instead of... whatever that post was?

I believe you accused the tweet of somehow pandering towards men? Would you care to explain how exactly it does that, or why that tweet is somehow bad... or wrong? 

Everything is misogynistic, somehow. Don't question it