23 réponses à ce sujet

[RZIBARA]

 

watch from 2:00 to 2:20

 

Beautiful statement that I agree with 100% 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Smudboy is a dingus. Sure, he may raise good points every now and again, but it's buried underneath piles of nit-picking and pedantry.

 

Try talking any sense into him on YT, and he'll block you.

 

Dude's not really interested in understanding or constructive criticism, just hearing himself talk. 

[AlanC9]

It's a sound strategy. His goal is to promote himself; encouraging debate about whether he's right about stuff isn't very useful to him.

[von uber]

Is it me or is he trying to channel redlettermedia.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Is it me or is he trying to channel redlettermedia.

He's just a pale imitation of the real thing. 

Not that I really disagree with him at times, but RLM is the king. 

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

He may get a bit too vitriolic at times, but that doesn't make his points any less valid.

 

"When fans send you cupcakes to tell you there's something wrong with your game, there's something wrong with your game". Damn straight.

[SwobyJ]

Well, ME3 is a very questionable game.

 

Ask your questions.

 

But yeah their PR was bad.

 

And so is Smudboy.

[Iakus]

 Smudboy is a dingus. Sure, he may raise good points every now and again, but it's buried underneath piles of nit-picking and pedantry.

 

Try talking any sense into him on YT, and he'll block you.

 

Dude's not really interested in understanding or constructive criticism, just hearing himself talk. 

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.  This is where rather than attacking the point being made, you go after the person making the point with irrelevant statements, typically insults.  It's an attempt to invalidate the argument via personal attacks.

[AlanC9]

Well, I can hardly blame him for not bothering to engage with the video itself.

 

Edit: personally, I've given up on bothering with videos unless the poster made it himself. 

[Iakus]

Well, I can hardly blame him for not bothering to engage with the video itself.

 

Edit: personally, I've given up on bothering with videos unless the poster made it himself. 

Then he should have said nothing at all. 

[Obadiah]

...
watch from 2:00 to 2:20
 
Beautiful statement that I agree with 100%

I give up. Why is having a vote for the depiction of femshep (something I wouldn't have done and I am sure Bioware will never do again), bending over backwards for fans who don't care about the story?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

(...) It's an attempt to invalidate the argument (...)

 

I was not attempting even that, buddy. Don't know what he was arguing here (I may even agree with it!) and don't really care, either.

 

What I do care about is that people know who they're dealing with. Ad-hominem attacks may not work toward invalidating an argument, but identifying biases do, and the only way to detect them is know who the source is and gauge their motivations. Take you for instance, Iakus. It helps to know that you're unhappy about the game to see how your emotions get in the way of any rational analysis on this topic (it may even explain your eager readiness to accept and defend arguments from those who share your opinion, valid or no). Calling your points invalid just because you're an anti-ender would be an ad-hominem attack and ineffective. Identifying the negativity-bias that plagues your outlook, though... not so much.

 

So it is with smudboy. History has shown that he doesn't always understand the subject matter he analyzes real well and that he's even closed-off to being better understood. Do these truths invalidate every argument he makes? No. You'll notice I even said he does raise valid points from time to time. However, his actions hint at his motivations. It's clearly not about understanding or offering constructive criticism; his actions preclude that. You ask me, he just enjoys putting on airs with his videos. It would explain his tendency to pick nits and disregard the accuracy of his claims. Endless rambling definitely meets that goal, and accuracy would often stand in the way of it. He looks at this thing for only what supports his agenda. That's confirmation-bias, and he's guilty of it in his analysis more often than not.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

I was not attempting even that, buddy. Don't know what he was arguing here (I may even agree with it!) and don't really care, either.

What I do care about is that people know who they're dealing with. Ad-hominem attacks may not work toward invalidating an argument, but identifying biases do, and the only way to detect them is know who the source is and gauge their motivations. Take you for instance, Iakus. It helps to know that you're unhappy about the game to see how your emotions get in the way of any rational analysis on this topic (it may even explain your eager readiness to accept and defend arguments from those who share your opinion, valid or no). Calling your points invalid just because you're an anti-ender would be an ad-hominem attack and ineffective. Identifying the negativity-bias that plagues your outlook, though... not so much.

So it is with smudboy. History has shown that he doesn't always understand the subject matter he analyzes real well and that he's even closed-off to being better understood. Do these truths invalidate every argument he makes? No. You'll notice I even said he does raise valid points from time to time. However, his actions hint at his motivations. It's clearly not about understanding or offering constructive criticism; his actions preclude that. You ask me, he just enjoys putting on airs with his videos. It would explain his tendency to pick nits and disregard the accuracy of his claims. Endless rambling definitely meets that goal, and accuracy would often stand in the way of it. He looks at this thing for only what supports his agenda. That's confirmation-bias, and he's guilty of it in his analysis more often than not.

And then, there's HYR 2.0. His actions also hint at his motivations. It's clearly not about debunking arguments or offering rational thought, his actions preclude that. If you ask me, he's a bit narcissistic and mean. It would explain his tendency to take a poster's name, but it in bold and employ some sort of pseudo-analysis on the poster.

Which is not only incredibly rude but also nonsensical in content. See what I did there ...buddy?

[Iakus]

I was not attempting even that, buddy. Don't know what he was arguing here (I may even agree with it!) and don't really care, either.

 

What I do care about is that people know who they're dealing with. Ad-hominem attacks may not work toward invalidating an argument, but identifying biases do, and the only way to detect them is know who the source is and gauge their motivations. Take you for instance, Iakus. It helps to know that you're unhappy about the game to see how your emotions get in the way of any rational analysis on this topic (it may even explain your eager readiness to accept and defend arguments from those who share your opinion, valid or no). Calling your points invalid just because you're an anti-ender would be an ad-hominem attack and ineffective. Identifying the negativity-bias that plagues your outlook, though... not so much.

 

So it is with smudboy. History has shown that he doesn't always understand the subject matter he analyzes real well and that he's even closed-off to being better understood. Do these truths invalidate every argument he makes? No. You'll notice I even said he does raise valid points from time to time. However, his actions hint at his motivations. It's clearly not about understanding or offering constructive criticism; his actions preclude that. You ask me, he just enjoys putting on airs with his videos. It would explain his tendency to pick nits and disregard the accuracy of his claims. Endless rambling definitely meets that goal, and accuracy would often stand in the way of it. He looks at this thing for only what supports his agenda. That's confirmation-bias, and he's guilty of it in his analysis more often than not.

 

If you care about about people knowing who they are dealing with, why don't you let people hear the arguments and draw their own conclusions, rather than poisoning the well yourself?  PRetty sure they'll detect the biases without prompting from you.

 

As for me, yes I do not attempt to hide my biases.  I'm proud to voice my opinions on ME3.  But for all that we don't disagree on virtually everything to do with ME3, have I ever called you a dingus? 

 

For that matter, have I even weighed in on the video, save to call you out on smearing the guy without even addressing his arguments?  No, I have not.  Truth be told, I have not even had time to view the video yet, and can't give an assesment yet.  ATM I'm not accepting and defending his arguments, just pointing out that thus far, you're trying to sway people against his argument without even addressing the argument itself.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

And then, there's HYR 2.0. His actions also hint at his motivations. It's clearly not about debunking arguments or offering rational thought, his actions preclude that. If you ask me, he's a bit narcissistic and mean. It would explain his tendency to take a poster's name, but it in bold and employ some sort of pseudo-analysis on the poster.

Which is not only incredibly rude but also nonsensical in content. See what I did there ...buddy?

I do, and I might respect it, but there are a few problems here...
 
-- You're basing your conclusion off of a sample size of one (post). I've based my conclusion of smudboy off of repeated instances of things I've described, and many others have seen the same thing if you don't believe me.
-- You're the first person who has accused me of not debunking arguments or offering rational thought. You're also new around here. Go figure.
 

 

If you care about about people knowing who they are dealing with, why don't you let people hear the arguments and draw their own conclusions,

 
Because they may lack the experiences with him that I've had, or are relatively new to his videos.
 
By saying my piece on the source at hand here (which I have every right to) I can call attention to issues with said source.
 
Simple.
 

rather than poisoning the well yourself?  PRetty sure they'll detect the biases without prompting from you.

 

I don't know, for the same reason you felt the need to spring to his defense?
 
If they can think well enough to without my contributions here, then there's no need for you to undermine my posts for fear of me "poisoning the well," either. Perhaps I am not "poisoning" anything at all, but purifying the water with reverse-osmosis.

 

Who are you to decide otherwise?
 
 

have I ever called you a dingus?

 
No, but that may nor may not have to do with the fact that insulting me would go against site rules. If I were not a registered user around here, it would be legally in-bounds for you to call me whatever you'd like. I would not complain about it. Quote me on that.
 
You're not new around here either, for that matter. You should know by now that I post with a bit of an edge.
 
 

just pointing out that thus far, you're trying to sway people against his argument without even addressing the argument itself.

 
For the third time now, I'm not responding to any arguments of his at all. I'm voicing my opinion of the source itself.

And I have every right to. You think people never say things similar things about, say, IGN, when articles from their site are posted here? What I see here are clear double-standards at work on how that's applied.

[KaiserShep]

Is it me or is he trying to channel redlettermedia.

 

Trying to emulate the Harry Plinkett persona or anything RLM is a pretty hard thing to do. Smudboy isn't clever enough to pull it off.

[Iakus]

 
Because they may lack the experiences with him that I've had, or are relatively new to his videos.
 
By saying my piece on the source at hand here (which I have every right to) I can call attention to issues with said source.
 
Simple.
 

SO you feel the need to tell people what to think?  Or that they're too stupid to figure it out for themselves?

 

 

I don't know, for the same reason you felt the need to spring to his defense?

If they can think well enough to without my contributions here, then there's no need for you to undermine my posts for fear of me "poisoning the well," either. Perhaps I am not "poisoning" anything at all, but purifying the water with reverse-osmosis.

 

Who are you to decide otherwise?
 

I'm someone who read your post, and thus am qualified to critique it.

 

For the third time now, I'm not responding to any arguments of his at all. I'm voicing my opinion of the source itself.

And I have every right to. You think people never say things similar things about, say, IGN, when articles from their site are posted here? What I see here are clear double-standards at work on how that's applied.

 

 

Maybe I just expect better from you.

[Iakus]

Trying to emulate the Harry Plinkett persona or anything RLM is a pretty hard thing to do. Smudboy isn't clever enough to pull it off.

 

I've seen some of his videos, and they used to be much more RLM-esque.  He's moved away from it over time, though.  Now, I think that's just his real voice. 

[Obadiah]

Um... can I just point out that in Smudboy's statement from 2:00 - 2:20 (what this thread is supposed to be about) he doesn't actually try to defend his opinion either. In fact (and I only listened to half of video) Smudboy didn't seem to be defending much of anything, just making snarky claims about the game.

The video doesn't really seem to be an argument for anything, just an opinion given. Some might find it entertaining, but did anyone really care the Shep reached for pistols with the Assault Rifle equip animation? To me, if Smudboy is gonna be that trifling, it's perfectly fair to be as trifling in a response.

[Jorji Costava]

While I've never been a fan of the ending, I find Smudboy pretty unhelpful. As Daniel Dennett says, "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear."

 

My main point of divergence with Smudboy is that I'm not a member of the plot-hole police. The whole project of nitpicking at the most minute of lore inconsistencies just seems like a confabulatory exercise; we can tolerate plot holes in things we like (they are always there to be found), but when we don't like something, pointing out plot holes can make for a convenient post hoc rationalization for our gut-level emotional reaction. Yet that hardly seems like the most interesting way to critically engage with any given creative work.

[Iakus]

SO after finally seeing the video

 

5) Nit-picking

 

4) Generally agree.  MArketing was and still is awful

 

3a) By the Maker, THIS!  Bioware neds to eat some humble pie!

3b) Generally agree, though he is unnecessarily unkind to IT-ers.

 

2) Also agree.  Legion's treatment is front and center evidence of how keenly Chris L'Etoile's loss really was

 

1) Yup.  Oh, but wait WE CAN'T DEFEAT THEM CONVENTIONALLY!  OH NOES!!!  Because the PLOT demands it!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

SO you feel the need to tell people what to think?  Or that they're too stupid to figure it out for themselves?

 

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

 

I said my piece about the video uploader and left it at that. What people think of that is their own business.

 

Not sure why I have to go on the record to say that, but there. Great googly moogly.

 

Maybe I just expect better from you.

 

 

Oh? And I suppose I fell short of your standards by being "rude" or, something to that effect.

 

 

Well then, again I say you should know me better. I'm not hard to understand: I call it like I see it. It's just that simple.

 

So what you should expect is that I'll speak my mind about things and not hold back. While I'm not sure what your ideal for decorum is, there's something to be said about honesty, about sincerity, IMO. If you'd prefer I say things you want to hear, or speak in "politically-correct" fashion, then I'll only continue to disappoint. Then again, I'm not sure why I should to conform to your standards in the first place.

[Bob from Accounting]

'Nit-picking' is really a term that people need to learn how to use. And generally use less of.

 

You see, 'nit-picking' implies that while something is an issue, it's so tiny an issue as it doesn't need to be bothered with.

 

In reality, most of the 'issues' that people claim to be subjects of 'nit-picking' are not issues at all. They have no validity whatsoever. Zero. They're not a small issue, they're a nonexistent issue. The complaints aren't 'nit-picking,' they're simply stupid.