Dr.Ghosts wrote:P.P.S.S. You're going to claim I didn't understand your argument. Calling this right now.
No I am not. Please do not lie about me.
P.S. I read old books too, and am also capable of namedropping them. The brothers karamazov. The three musketeers. The great gatsby. "feminism".
Nice that you have namedropped them, but I fail to see the point. As you are aware, I named three works because they were about the same thing. The point being that if I were to judge the books by what they are about I would judge them equally even though they are, in fact, quite different.
And yes, I said that Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Firebrand is a feminist work. So what?
Directed mostly at this and the things posted that were similar to this. And there are a lot of them! You can't say it's a straw man when I can just go back and look at the posts that exist.
Actually I can and, in point of fact, I more or less did. Reality is a hard thing to fight against, but you seem determined to try. Just to make it explicit:
It's a straw man.
I have done that which you said I could not do. Perhaps you should reevaluate your statements considering something that you have stated as fact is clearly false.
More to the point, someone strongly implied that it was incorrect to judge people based upon reviews that they made. You have now attempted to support your judgment of people by citing two reviews people made (of reviews no less.) If it is improper to judge people based on reviews then it is improper to judge people on reviews. A=A. You yourself called attention to this fact in your first post.
After calling attention to it you said, "Therefore, if you don't actually feel superior to the people who write these reviews that you all seem to despise or to make fun of, this isn't directed at you." So who is it directed at. Can you cite a single person it is directed at without judging them based upon a review that person made?
If you can then I take it back.
If you can not then the conclusion I am left with is that the post is directed at a nonspecific person or group of people (who may or may not exist) whose description is, "Whoever my argument may apply to," which seems like a straw man to me.
I don't think raging at nerds for being terrible is hypocritical. At worst I think it's kind of a waste of time, because they'll never believe that they're terrible.
I think raging at peoples reviews because those reviews were raging at other reviews is hypocritical. But maybe that is just me.
Can you at least admit that you are being terrible?
Also, when most people say cover, they mean the front of the book. I have never, ever seen a cover with a description of what is in the book. (Except when the title is the description. Like "The Cave of Time", which is a choose your own adventure that is about a cave of time. I haven't read it.) Generally they just have a title and an author. General it's the back or the inside cover of the book that has a blurb about it, or a sample of the writing on it. This is an important distinction, because those things are generally put there FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF JUDGING WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WORTHWHILE TO BUY THE BOOK.
The express purpose of the picture on the front cover is to help people judge whether or not it is worthwhile to buy the book. What is your point? That is the express purpose of many titles as well.
I don't think someone should be judged harshly for refusing to spend time playing a game that is "a game that is like deus ex but about an internet forum and internet forum drama and memes."
Which is why no one has. Some have been reviewed harshly for giving harsh reviews without experiencing that which they reviewed. Also, I would be interested to know where you got that description of the game. Doesn't ring true.
I think it is a perfectly valid judgment to refuse to play a game based on such a stupid premise. It's a fun game, because it is deus ex, but come on, that is seriously the third or forth most terrible premise I've ever heard.
Which is why that isn't actually the premise.
By the way, good job saying people who think and act differently than you need psychiatric help!
Are you saying that they don't? People with untreated schizophrenia think differently than me. Are you saying none of them need help?
I didn't say everyone who thinks differently from me needs psychiatric help. I said people who think different from me in a certain pathological way should seek help. I said that people who make judgments via inherently irrational means should seek help and while I was not actually serious I do think that irrational decision making can be dangerous.
This is the internet, though, you could probably get away with just saying that that's how hitler would act.
Hitler would reward you with a gold watch for quitting smoking, that does not make me believe that quitting smoking is wrong. Appeal to Hitler is odd at best.
[Added]
Just for the hell of it:
Premise: The fundamental concept that drives the plot.
The plot of TNM is not driven by it being an internet forum, or internet memes or even internet drama. These things play an important role. Forum City is the setting after all. But think about it, leave these to drive the plot and the plot goes nowhere. There is no plot. Nothing happens.
The plot is driven by DD being kidnapped. The premise is (and we can quibble over phrasing) is that Trest was called in to investigate the kidnapping of a powerful and integral member of the community.