Lurker > ItsKaljinyuTime

adjl posted...

Wanting to kill people is not toxic masculinity. That's just plain ol' being a dink.

Believing that wanting to kill people makes somebody more of a man is toxic masculinity.

Believing that wanting to kill people makes somebody more of a woman would be toxic femininity.

The argument from the people who cry "toxic masculinity" is that these ideas propagate in society because we stifle men from being like New Kratos, we instead prefer men to be like Classic Kratos. We believe that quiet introspect is not as cool or manly as being a fight-and-fuck machine, and that's toxic thinking.

But I don't think it is toxic thinking.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

They complain about a form of toxic behaviour that is classically linked to masculinity, but not exclusive to it.

No one's talking about "toxic femininity," unless they mean to tie it back to toxic masculinity. No one's complaining about "The Matriarchy."

Shananagainz posted...

But the games message isnt exclusive to just one gender though? Faye and Freya in game are both examples of that. If anything its a message about generational trauma and working towards making things better for their kids than men bad, be better.

I know what this is about. When people complain about these things, they're saying toxic masculinity is at the root of it.

Yellow posted...

I know you're trolling now because the MRA does anti-circumcision and paternal custody rights stuff which is actually pretty based

They don't whine about Kratos with 8 layers of analysis

Anita Sarkeesian man

You're picking and choosing your favorite parts. MRAs also criticize unfair portrayals of men in stories.

Shananagainz posted...

Still lost on how it attacks your masculinity since being a petty asshole isnt really exclusive to a single gender

That's the argument a lot of men's rights activists make. That people look at these actions and beliefs and define them as "toxic masculinity," as if women were above this and all the world's evils were rooted in what bad men do and everything would be solved if men and men alone would be better.

Yellow posted...

Ok, I kind of like the new one, that's just your opinion

Don't think that makes me a feminazi

You can like the new one, but the problem with those games is that they're saying I'm wrong for not liking the values it represents. It's not just that I have to like the game, I have to not like the things the game says are bad.

That's why the game keeps saying "be better." Because the way Kratos used to be is "worse." The message is "Vengeance is not good, justice is better. Compassion is better. To think otherwise makes you immature." I say fuck that, and fuck the games for saying that to me.

Yellow posted...

In Minecraft or Roblox? :)

In God of War. I like the old Kratos, but this new Kratos is a deliberate rejection of him and the people who fetishize him. To that I say fuck you, yes I value vengeance and sex with hot ladies over whatever flowery bullshit Kratos cares about now. I don't wanna have to care about people.

Yellow posted...

Yeah, what kind of man is that?

The kind who wants moments where it's okay to kill people.

Shananagainz posted...

Dunno why you put quotations around toxicity when the examples provided are pretty toxic to begin with.

I didn't say they weren't, I'm saying the kind of man I am isn't toxic but people think I am. Even though I am not Andrew Tate and I don't beat my girlfriend.

Yellow posted...

That could range anywhere from "I beat my gf" to Andrew Tate levels of "women are property, younger ones are easier to manipulate", and I don't even like using that term

The fight is against both of those, and more. The spectrum of "toxicity" is wider than that.

Shananagainz posted...

This is saying a lot more about you than the people youre upset about lmao

I don't agree with the idea that my brand of masculinity is toxic.

Rotpar posted...

Yeah, the psychotic god who killed his family, brutally slaughtered the Olympians, and nearly ended the world in the process has no reason to realize he's done wrong or want his son to have the discipline and control he lacked.

Unless the new game has Freya lecturing you about how men are bad, the battle you're looking for isn't here.

The "toxic masculinity" fight isn't about how men are bad, it's about how certain men are bad. I just happen to be one of those certain men.

Throughout both games Kratos keeps saying that he and everyone else has to "be better." Those exact words. Think I don't know what that's about? I went to college. You're not as nuanced as you think, God of War. I know what that's about. Those are the same buzzwords everyone uses to complain about "toxic masculinity."

They don't make games for my kind anymore. There's little place at all in the world for my kind anymore. I just want moments where it's okay to kill people.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not even close.

You've provided the content you choose to in order to attempt to prove the point you're trying to make, but that's not even remotely the same thing.

These are the things he's said, there's no more context to them.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Depending on context, neither of these things are necessarily untrue.

Nor, depending on the context of statements made and meanings intended, does he actually believe what you seem to think he believes.

I've provided all context.

If so, I'd like you to also consider that he's kinda... I don't wanna say "predatory," but he's a believer in "pursuing" women. In that just because she says "no" doesn't mean you should give up trying to win her over. And he's a believer that that whole #MeToo thing ran the risk of making life unfair for men like him (as if there were other men like him) who aren't sex criminals or anything just for not taking no for an answer right away. Amazingly we all forgot about that. He survived #MeToo. It's over now and everyone loves him.

Consider that, while also considering that he's a true gamer and a true fan? My theory is that Henry Cavill is in fact an incel who wished on a star to become a real man. So now he can say what he wants and fuck who he wants with impunity.

GameLord113 posted...

Looks like the president of Poland is saying that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/16/ukraine-russia-poland-missile-live-updates/10709829002/

Ukraines defense was launching their missiles in various directions and it is highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory, Duda said. There is nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland.

So does Ukraine apologize and we move on? Or do we charge them with war crimes?

teddy241 posted...

Now they saying it was someone from ukraine who did it

Which would imply that NATO will now have to retaliate against Ukraine, not Russia. That's a stumper.

Incidentally, this is also the day Trump said he had an announcement that he speculated would be one of the most important days in America's history. Maybe he's behind the missiles in Poland?

Specifically, 2 missiles hit a farm in Przewodw on the Poland/Ukraine border. 2 Poles were killed.

Probably an accident, maybe Russia apologizes and we move on? Or is this a war crime of some kind?

adjl posted...

It didn't kill them. It just provided an alternative that people liked better. As much as that's unfortunate for those that preferred the old communities that haven't been able to sustain themselves, that's just the nature of any service industry: People will leave one service if another one serves their needs better.

Are there issues inherent in consolidating the Internet into mega-sites that hold near-monopolies on whatever service they provide? Absolutely. We're seeing that with Twitter now, actually: Musk running it into the ground is causing problems for those that have come to rely on it and he's killing it faster than a competitor can take its place. But the demand is there and I expect several similar services will be competing to fill that vacuum in short order.

We didn't migrate to this because people liked it better, we migrated to this because it was cheaper than running and maintaining your own platform. If companies didn't rely on it, people wouldn't flock to it.

EvilMegas posted...

"My personal gripe is a problem for all of society" the topic.

I don't like the way society is headed, I'm not the first person with that take.

adjl posted...

But they could hear from a real person on Twitter, and Twitter is a perfectly fine platform for that. There's always going to be demand to gather all updates from individuals and companies that you're interested in in one place, especially without pressure for those updates to be "newsworthy" or otherwise passing through any sort of third-party curation that presumes what you want/need to see. Obviously, Twitter's algorithms and moderation do still end up curating your content to some extent, but you can still customize by following people and prioritizing their updates over others, and having a single site for that instead of having to visit a dozen different personal websites to check for updates isn't a bad thing.

But that is a bad thing, for more reasons than just my distaste for a social media website that wants to represent my proven identity. It's also bad because it contributes to the consolidation and monopolization of the Internet. We used to have so many websites, now they've all opted to just have Twitter pages. This modern Internet killed the Mortal Kombat forums, for instance.

ReturnOfFa posted...

thanks for talking past everything I said lmao

My concern isn't whether Twitter really is the "town square" it's made out to be. Maybe people will jump to another site and Twitter dying is no big loss. That's not my concern. My concern was what you said originally: If you don't wanna be anonymous on Twitter, I still say you shouldn't be able to. I still say Twitter shouldn't be able to represent your actual identity. If you want that, make your own website specifically to represent only you. Like an artist's portfolio.

Hard_Light posted...

what reason would you ever have to go to cambells.com to be able to see there's a recall on your favorite soup?

do you realize how ridiculous that is?

apply your argument to real life, not the internet.

what then.

it's been a thing since gamefaqs started. developers do come here, we even have a few ceos here. xseed is most notable. they get the nice vip tag, which is like moderators tags, except it says vip. this is specifically so you can know that this person talking about this game like they worked on it did, in fact, work on it so they can be more trusted to know what they are talking about more than some random ass dude with no credentials.

i don't know why this has to be spelled out for you multiple times. it just appears like you want to be disingenuous on purpose.

If I wanna know there's a recall, I watch the news like I used to. If I wanna know about video game stuff, I read video game news, like I used to. It doesn't need to be "spelled out," I know why people do it. I'm saying the Internet is worse because of doing things this way.

kind9 posted...

Social media was a mistake. You get the validation you crave but don't deserve. Gives the dumbest people in the world a voice and a following they don't deserve and definitely shouldn't have. Emboldens narcissistic assholes to think they're the funniest and most intelligent people ever. And by the way, who wants to share a social platform with every other human being and LLC on the planet? Hard pass from me. I can understand using something like facebook to keep in touch with IRL friends and family, but I can't see the purpose of twitter beyond marketing and arguing and vomiting worthless opinions to see how many Likes it nets you. I agree with some things TC is saying, but obviously verification is pretty important on a site like twitter so you know you're hearing from the real person/people they claim to be. Hopefully Musk runs twitter into the ground and buries it because it can't be fixed.

The mistake was always letting people believe they could hear from a real person on Twitter. Twitter never should've been for that.

Hard_Light posted...

where should you get that information from then

Where we got it in 2003. Companies used to have "websites" instead of cheaping out on an Instagram page.

Hard_Light posted...

yes there is. specifically so when you say you work for x company, it's verified.

Ah, so this "Let companies use consumer platforms" thing has spread to GameFAQs? Why should it be GameFAQs business who I am?

Yellow posted...

I don't understand how you can write an essay on why revoking verifications is actually a good thing. Maybe not everyone wants to be anonymous. Public officials and celebrities want to be known and have a way to talk to their followers. If you wanted to be anonymous, you could always do that instead.

It is just the removal of a feature that many people enjoyed.

I'm sure they do, but they're making the Internet worse by letting Twitter advocate for them. Nothing I see on Twitter should have any relevance to actual business. I should not be able to report a bad batch of McNuggets on Twitter, I should not be able to get corporate policy from Eli Lilly on Twitter. No more than I should be able to get these things on GameFAQs. That's not what Twitter should be for. It's just a microblogging website.

agesboy posted...

schreier does journalism on journalism websites, and links it on twitter for wider reach. same for the WHO. i literally don't understand why you feel like linking shit is some moral travesty

also, uh, are you calling jason schreier, the guy that regularly ousts major corporate entities for being pieces of shit, a major corporate entity?

He's a journalist, he should keep his journalism on the websites he works for. He shouldn't rely on Twitter for "exposure" if the cost of that is putting my faith in Twitter.

Hard_Light posted...

you can take kals entire ergument and apply it to every other form of media. tv, print, public criers

and it's stupid each and every time.

why would you want to be anonymous on the internet unless you want to be dubious? we already have so much anonymity on the internet that it's detrimental to the overall populace in ways people don't even think about.

how many people fall for the onion? babylonbee?

how many people find misinformation at lizardpeople.r.real.ru/geocities4.0/jesus-was-a-alien-lizard and believe it?

this is what kal is arguing to keep. he's arguing for a pipe dream where none of that happens but he is still allowed to stay a random faceless person and it doesn't work like that.

moreover it's just plain idiotic.

"why don't they use their own website??!?!?!?!?!"

why don't news stations stop talking about the news then? they aren't the ones doing any of it, so there's no reason for them to let people know what's happening. it should be up to the cop that killed a innocent 5 year old to tell people he killed a person on his platform.

The Onion and Babylon Bee are openly satirical websites. If you're falling for The Onion, that's your fault.

TV news is supposed to report news. But Twitter is just a microblogging website. It didn't originally have the responsibility of being anyone's "official platform." Again, there are no "checkmarked" GameFAQs accounts. So there shouldn't be any on Twitter or YouTube or anywhere else.

Yellow posted...

Haha, what? Gamefaqs has the funniest opinions.

It worked before and now it doesn't. We used to be able to tell pretty easily if it was the real public official's account, now you have to dig deeper. Yes actually that was the whole point of the verification that they removed. Like Tony Hawk, did Tony Hawk actually reply to me, or is it some guy who bought the verification?

Btw, I actually like the Twitter character limit, I think debates should work like that, because it doesn't let people dress up bad arguments with 90% poetic fluff that makes it sound better. Despite what people say I think a good argument will sound just as good at 20 words or less, a bad argument, not so much.

I don't like downvotes (on comments) either tbh. I think if someone has a problem with something posted they should reply. It's more polite that way.

The issue isn't "How do I know if the person I'm talking to is real?" The issue is that Twitter was ever allowed to represent the real life identities of people. It should be just as anonymous as GameFAQs is.

ReturnOfFa posted...

that's definitely how it was on...certain websites, and not on other websites. you would go to an artist's official website if you wanted official news. your idea of everyone always being anonymous online is a fantasy. yeah, we're anonymous on here. I also have presence online where I'm not anonymous for definitely useful reasons.

Twitter's 'verified users' dealio worked, still had some problems, and then Elon proposed an idea that has even more problems.

I'd say this entire debacle is more indicative that some people (Elon) have put too much stock in the value of specific social media websites. If you screw one up, people will jump ship without it being a giant dilemma for them. He's acting like people owe him just because he thinks he's going to 'make Twitter better'. Even if he was, markets will change and different social media sites will gain or lose popularity. Acting like Twitter is the definition of 'the public square' was one of his first mistakes. It's a stupid website that is presently popular and may or may not have longevity. See MySpace, Tumblr, et al.

It wasn't a fantasy, once upon a time. There was pretty much perfect anonymity before Facebook came along. And we were better off for it. I can't think of anything we've gained that was worth what we lost.

agesboy posted...

not all of the internet needs to be valueless shitposting drivel like 4chan or gamefaqs, you know. there are people doing actual good on twitter like Jason Schreier reporting on labor abuses in the games industry or the World Health Organization spreading important COVID and flu related information

the existence of verified twitter doesn't even DO shit to anonymous twitter, anonymous twitter has been thriving for twitter's entire existence. like if anything it should be a plus. you can't ratio ben shapiro on gamefaqs but you sure as hell can on twitter!

"I get to ratio Ben Shapiro" is one of the things I specifically hate about the now times. We were better off back when we couldn't "ratio" Ben Shapiro. We shouldn't care about ratio-ing Ben Shapiro, Ben Shapiro shouldn't have an account on the Internet where he reveals his real name, unless that website is an online news journal that he writes for.

The damage that Verified Twitter has done to the Internet is letting people believe in things posted on random websites on the Internet. If Jason Schreier wants to do journalism, he can do it on a journalism website. If the WHO wants to publish information, they have their own website. Where we fucked up is taking consumer sites and letting major corporate/government entities set up shop on them.

Yellow posted...

Seemed to work fine before Elon came along with his genius ideas. Now I can't tell who's real anymore.

agesboy posted...

it's less societal issues and more that twitter has, until the past few weeks, always assigned at least legitimacy to blue checkmarks. the rug suddenly being pulled from under us doesn't mean we have a falling problem

You're not supposed to ask yourself who's real on Twitter. That never should've been what Twitter or YouTube or Facebook were about. The problem was always that we assigned any legitimacy at all to these checkmarks.

Who are we in this thread, right now? I don't know any of your real names. That used to be how it was everywhere on the Internet. We don't need "verified accounts."

agesboy posted...

naw, this is entirely on elon

he's changing and deleting things too rapidly with too small of a staff to keep up with. he's personally offended by people being mean to him on the internet and he's taking it out on twitter by just deleting necessary features or subverting current features in a way that is inherently duplicitous. he legitimately does not care about twitter and is already talking about bankruptcy two weeks into his shitty reign

I'm talking about the issue of being able to buy a blue checkmark. Maybe it's our fault for becoming the kind of society that puts trust in a blue checkmark.

I thought I might be an extrovert, until I met a new co-worker of mine. He's a real extrovert. A man who is just eager to greet and talk and befriend everyone he sees as if he had known them all his life. No one is too boring or too hostile for him to try and be friends with. Show the slightest interest in him and he'll spill his life story to you. Then ask you to do the same.

He's bad at his job, he has options to work elsewhere and do a remote job. But he refuses. Because he's compelled to go out and be amongst people and socialize. He goes insane if he has to be alone.

Not just Twitter, but this whole "Reveal your actual identity on the Internet" thing.

In case you didn't hear, blue checkmarks are on sale for 8 dollars a month. That's it, that's the only thing. Problem is, if I call myself "Elon Musk" and buy a blue checkmark for my name, idiots will assume I am the Elon Musk they happen to think about. So people are running with this gag and making all sorts of fake accounts with blue checkmarks.

It's being seen as a big fumble on Elon's part, even though this isn't even the first time this has happened. Jaboukie Young-White played the same pranks with his own account and nobody freaked out except Twitter themselves. But this time around, someone pretended to be pharmaceuticals company Eli Lilly and Tweeted that insulin was free. This caused their stock to go into a steep nosedive.

But the more I think about this as an old person, I can't help but blame the fact that we put too much stock in random accounts on the Internet. The mistake all along was that any company but Twitter would have an "official" Twitter account. We need to go back to before we did that kind of thing. If Eli Lilly wants to say something on the Internet, it should be through channels they alone own. Not Twitter, not YouTube, just Lilly.com.

Whargarble posted...

Rage comics only disappeared because they became mainstream and the weirdos who started them began to hate them because they don't like anything the "normies" do. As long as wojaks don't gain mainstream popularity, antisocial weirdos will not stop using them.

Basically, I'm saying we need to tell CNN and FOX about wojaks to eliminate them.

So the meme must become "cancer," is that right? Aren't there other ways for Wojaks to fall?

Cruddy_horse posted...

I don't think wojaks ever reached the popularity of rage comics, rage comics were everywhere whereas I only ever saw a few people use wojaks.

I would consider it a different kind of culture. Rage Comics got to be on big websites whereas Wojaks didn't, but that's because Rage Comics were around during that early-2010s "capitalize on Internet culture" boom. Where there were a bunch of big websites specifically dedicated to hosting Rage Comics.

If it really is true that memes die faster nowadays, consider the lifespan of the Rage Comics. From niche 4chan thing to mid-2010s darling, later killed by the hot new niche 4chan thing which was Wojaks. All over about 8 years.

When did Wojaks really come into force? Around 2015 or so, because of politics. So I say give this up until the next Presidential election and we should be moving on to the next hot new niche 4chan thing. I would invest now.

SoreChasm posted...

Does every post have to be a non-happy one?

Not every post is a non-happy one.

SoreChasm posted...

The official criteria is not being such a sourpuss when making observations.

Does every post have to be a happy one?

SoreChasm posted...

You dont have to give us your observations.

Nobody has to post anything. What's the criteria for making observations around here?

Sarcasthma posted...

Yeah, TC gets mad over the oddest things.

I'm not mad, just disappointed. What kind of observations should I be making about a year with nothing going for it?

Now here's an up-to-the-minute Halloween costume.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80207415

keyblader1985 posted...

That's your bar for dogshit?

Dogshit Halloween costumes, yeah. I can't imagine anything worse than "nothing." Can't imagine anything worse than absolute irrelevance, no pattern, no significance, there's nothing to this.

Halloween costumes, like a lot of our latter-year celebrations, are often about reflecting on the year's greatest hits. The stories that gripped the world. For instance, we got a bunch of Harley Quinn costumes the year Suicide Squad debuted. And 2020 probably would've had lots of Baby Yoda and Tiger King if Halloween wasn't cancelled.

But this year's got nothing tied to anything relevant to this year specifically.

https://trends.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_wGTrgmYBAABNZM_en

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/0/6/AAV8nEAAD0b2.png

What is any of this? Did nothing happen this year? I dunno, maybe Daredevil is a popular costume because of She-Hulk? I dunno. But this looks like a dud. A non-year. I shudder to think what Google's annual Year in Search thing will be about.

As if he wasn't Tory. Why does any care what color or gender anyone is anymore? Imagine thinking this means anything significant at all.

fishy071 posted...

I usually vote and encourage other people to vote.

You have to vote for the things I want you to vote for.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You don't want that. There are a number of people on this board who would explicitly be voting against you.

No, I don't want that! I said vote for the people I want to win!

I have no political agenda, except that ALL of you just get out and vote. For the people and initiatives I want to win. Oh, and if you could vote against the initiatives I want to lose? That's probably even more important. I know sometimes I feign impartiality, but there's a reason I'm only recently making this big push for you all to vote: Because only recently did the prospects I fear come to be a realistic possibility for this country. I would be very upset if the people I don't like or the ideas I don't like succeed. We're talking about a war for decency and rational thinking and common sense! If the people I don't like should succeed in the midterms? If the ideas I don't like should become acceptable? Common sense is just that much more forsaken, not just in this country, but in the world. Of course I'm partial! I'm talking about voting for good, and against evil!

So vote, PotD. Otherwise you don't get to complain!

BraverQuincy posted...

Because you don't actually personally know any of these people, it's weird to mourn them as though they were close family.

I don't know Kobe or the Queen or Betty White, and those deaths had impact. Why not the other ones?

papercup posted...

I dont think Ive ever done that? Idk I dont know them personally

Not you personally, I mean the Internet.

JixHedgehog posted...

Pretty much applies to anything that makes the news, it's there for a day or 2 then its onto the next thing.. the Ukraine war and the pandemic being exceptions

Of course the popularity on the passed celebrity would make a difference too, big names who've been around for decades (lots of musicians come to mind) would get days dedicated to them in terms of coverage vs someone who inspired the internet or someone who had a one hit wonder..

But it didn't used to be that way. Billy Mays left more of a void in 2009 than Angela Lansbury and Coolio combined.

When was the last big death that rocked the world? Queen Elizabeth? Okay. Betty White? Yeah they did that TV special for her...

But Coolio also died and people kinda just had one day for that. Then they moved on. It'll trend on Reddit for one day and then be over. When did things change?

I feel like in 2016 we still had reverence for a celebrity life lost. 2020... Kobe's death was a pretty big deal. Maybe this is a post-coronavirus thing, not caring about celebrity deaths as much.