Archive for the ‘proselytizing’ Category
One of the most amazing things about writing — or television, or games, or films — is that we have almost god-like control over the worlds we create. We decide where and why a tree grows. We choose the course of action that our characters take. We decide if they get to complete their quest, or if they find a different objective halfway through; we decide if they don't get there at all, and you have to have a reason behind that decision.
In the third part of my beleaguered recycled content series, I resurrect an article I originally wrote back in 2008 about the then-recent passage of California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in the state. In the wake of Obama's announcement that his beliefs on gay marriage have 'evolved' into a creature more befitting life in the 21st century, I have seen a number of discussions herald this as "the beginning of the end" of Obama's presidency — the logic being that with Bush's politicising of LGBT issues in 2004 potentially contributing to his re-election, Obama's support of gay marriage will cause a similar surge of conservatives rushing to the polls before they manage to get any gay on their clothing. More specifically, I have seen a number of references to the fact that gay marriage was banned in a liberal state such as California, so evidently this can happen anywhere. As I discussed here, however, Prop 8's passage had less to do with a swelling of conservative ire than simple lazy complacency on the part of those in the LGBT community who didn't take the issue very seriously until it was too late.
The internet had one of its periodic explosions over something inconsequential this weekend (not Whitney Houston) which, as it's prone to do, became Massive Drama as the initial issue was exacerbated and then picked up by more mainstream awareness. In this particular example, BioWare employee Jennifer Hepler joined Twitter. If, like me, the significance of this action flew over your head allow me to explain what I've learned from my deep minutes of research into her identity.
I do not like Jim Sterling. This isn't anything I'd really classify as a recent or sudden discovery, but rather — much like with 4chan trolls in general — something I prefer not to talk about much because Jim Sterling is the sort of individual who thrives on negative feedback, seeking to inspire as much of it as he can to validate some stylised image of himself as a Disaffected Internet Cool Kid. As a regular writer for Destructoid (amongst other places) he typifies the mentality that makes most people think of immature, greasy basement dwellers when "gamer" is said out loud.
Ever willing to push the bar when it comes to new innovations in dispelling the sort of feelings traditionally associated with that activity known as gaming, publishers are going to great lengths to attach chains to legitimate purchases in the misguided (and overwhelmingly unsupported) notion that it will prevent piracy. Almost as terrifying to publishers as piracy is the used-game industry, and to this end more and more are including one-time use codes for significant pieces of content that are only available to second-hand buyers if they pony over twenty bucks for new keys. With this in mind, seemingly, Capcom has released a title for the Nintendo 3DS, Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D, which has its own innovative twist on the DRM schemes of yore: the cartridge contains a single saved game file which cannot be reset or deleted, locking the player to a single route of progression through the game.
At its heart, Duke Nukem Forever is a first person shooter that basks in its own heritage, more interested in reminding the player of how awesome Duke is — and by extension, the series itself — rather than providing any new reason to think so. "I'm amazing because I think I am" is the motto of 2011's Duke, and Gearbox's implementation seems more interested in being offensive for the sake of it than for any sense of funny.
Last week the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability held a two-day talk to reconsider the 1985 ban on accepting donations of blood by men who have had sex with men since 1977. The US' ban has repeatedly been criticised by blood banks, medical experts and various associations as being based on no science but simply paranoia. Even though it's come up for reconsideration a few times, the ban has never been removed and sadly last week's attempt was no different. Despite soliciting opinions over the issue, the committee voted 9-6 to leave the ban in place, ignoring the advice from people who know what they are talking about who said such a ban was discriminatory and worthless.
2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D
2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- Joshua Meadows: I understand the frustration, but I think that’s taking the problem and going in the opposite extreme. Unlike the civil...
- Chris: Thank you… Sadly voices like ours are often hated. Sadly I actually hate the gay community and I am gay! I am not hip enough, skinny...
- Lord: Thank you for the well-worded post…now if only the message can get to the people who don’t want to be seen as supporters (usually...
- Joshua Meadows: Dagon, you simply repeated the same thing that Gman said — albeit in a more aggressive and less valid manner. I already addressed...
- Dagon: Well, I think you misunderstand the point Sterling is trying to make. He is saying it would be great if Drake was a homosexual because then...