GameFAQs is currently in Read-Only mode. All content is available, but you cannot log in, submit new posts or content, or make any other changes at this time
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Fighting Games
  3. Harada w/ his take on SJW pandering...

User Info: Dark Symphony

Dark Symphony
1 month ago#121
Johnny Blaque posted...
You really should not get defensive when you realize it's just one opinion.


Why not? Give me a reason.

Johnny Blaque posted...
Knee-jerk reactions have clearly not been working so far.


Working to do what? Explain. It's you and me talking right now.

Johnny Blaque posted...
I've been arguing for a measured response thus entire time. Not some stuff like the extreme hypothetical like Harada posted.


I really wish this world would get it together about twitter. It's a blurb site for posting blurbs, not well crafted insights. Why do we insist on taking anything said on twitter as an official presidential statement? The guy can go on a rant lampooning something on twitter. It happens all the time every day in face to face conversations and people know not to take it too seriously. The conversation was not at a point where you should be expecting Haradasanz deep measured thoughts on complex social matters.

Johnny Blaque posted...
That is not how you beat the outrage mob. I'm fine with Harada being sassy with customers but this response was just stupid.


Remember, he wasn't responding to the topic, he brought up the topic by seemingly flippantly taking jabs at certain social trends. I don't think he was out of line nor do I think he was actively trying to help a situation. He was just saying some crap.

User Info: Dark Symphony

Dark Symphony
1 month ago#122
Johnny Blaque posted...
As for mischaracterizations you spreading lies about Shkreli literally being JAILED for pissing off "the mob" was in bad faith and reframing some unrelated thing to empower your weak argument.


That's 100% incorrect and bluerain didn't return to actually go back and forth on that. (I'm kind of relieved he didn't because it seemed like a real hot button issue for him and it was really just a quick throw away example for m. As I said, I wanted to separate it and set it aside first so as not to derail the topic. I will, however, pose a similar question to you as I did him because I think you're not being quite genuine here:

Are you saying that public outcry never plays a role in what happens to people when it shouldn't? I don't fall for the gimmick where you get to question my example and be off the hook for acknowledging the core point. And if the core points is true then the alleged bad example cannot be in bad faith but can only be a bad example. We can argue about what happened to Shrkeli separately but first you need to stick out and tell me:

Public outrage does not often directly influence things that happen to people in ways it shouldn't. Is that your position?

Johnny Blaque posted...
To your credit you did admit to being wrong about that.


(Yet you still think it was a bad faith argument. Amazing stuff). To be more accurate, I admitted that I could be wrong. I then set it aside for the purposes I've stated before. Would you be interested in talking about the Shkreli situation a little more in-depth? Because, while I could have had my dates/facts wrong, I still thing a reasonable argument can be made that public outcry played a role in something it shouldn't have. I don't get starstruck by words like "jailed." Someone going to jail doesn't add legitimacy to anything for me. It shouldn't for any reasonable person. What legitimizes things for me are the actual facts. "If he didn't do it then why is he in jail?" is a silly position.

Johnny Blaque posted...
I've never reframed the argument, simply stated things as they were. But I clearly see you seem smart enough to realize when things are bait but stubborn enough to bite anyways and proud enough to never regret it. I'm not going to have any more to add to this discourse and I have a feeling we are going down the path of you screaming "ur the real problem!" lol.


Let's dance and see where we end up.

User Info: Dark Symphony

Dark Symphony
1 month ago#123
Lord_Shadow_19 posted...
CVGuile posted...
Dark Symphony posted...
Franchises may be resilient and be established enough to risk the mov but the people behind them may not be and it's a really tough sell to tell someone to take the risk for the greater good.

But where does Harada fit into this? He was never in a position to "take the risk" in the first place. Nobody is asking him to steel himself. It's not like he got wrapped up in a bad situation and picked one of a handful of possible avenues to escape from it and now we're telling him what he should have done instead. There is no viking in Tekken. There was never any talk about a viking in Tekken. I don't think anyone would have even thought a viking was within the nexus of SJW rebuke. Advising someone to not unnecessarily seek the attention of the very people he's afraid of attracting--totally unprompted, mind you--is different than asking him to take one for the team.


Maybe he simply doesnt like SJWs.


Exactomundo.

I know it's tough to track everything in online conversations like these and there are definitely things I'm thinking that I've either not conveyed or forgotten to write down.

I think Haradasanz was just taking an opportunity to crap on some stuff that bothered him. I never thought a Viking was in the realm of some kind of PC bait. Then again, he's not from here so he may not see the lines where I see them. Not every comment is meant to contribute to the "fight."

The other position I've been arguing is why people care and get worked up over these things. I don't think Haradasanz position was meant to be an official statement but I do understand why it could be a latent concern in the back of his mind and I definitely understand why people see this stuff as a big deal. Even considering this:

CVGuile posted...
Weird coincidence but the news just broke today that James Gunn was rehired. I think that solidifies my point that the support network is the key element. It can either allow bad guys to continue their enterprises or reverse injustices by putting pressure where it needs to be. The big question mark is you never know what direction that wind is going to blow.


The last sentence there is indeed critical and then there's the fact that people don't want to go through the crap in the first place. I've coached some people (informally) on how to deal with workplace situations where they've been wrong and unfairly sanctioned in some way. In situations where they were ultimately vindicated they don't often end up back at square one. They're still shaken up, angry, bitter and resentful and their superiors know that so now they've been wronged AND they've been marked as a problem because they are upset they were wronged. Not exactly a 1:1 situation but the point I'm making is the stuff has an effect on the individual and I can see why people are worried.

User Info: CVGuile

CVGuile
1 month ago#124
Dark Symphony posted...
Remember, he wasn't responding to the topic, he brought up the topic by seemingly flippantly taking jabs at certain social trends. I don't think he was out of line nor do I think he was actively trying to help a situation. He was just saying some crap.

Dark Symphony posted...
The other position I've been arguing is why people care and get worked up over these things. I don't think Haradasanz position was meant to be an official statement but I do understand why it could be a latent concern in the back of his mind and I definitely understand why people see this stuff as a big deal.

I'm curious where your line is with this. After all, "characters are just functions" was arguably ComboFiend saying some crap--at least in the sense that it probably wasn't a rehearsed statement or sanctioned by Capcom. But that doesn't mean it wasn't dumb. After all, the big issue overall in video game PR is that all these insiders jabber on about things in their games in a way that blurs the line between their role as an official representative and just some guy shooting the s*** with us over a beer. Plus Twitter is as much of a place to make public statements as an interview, even if most tweets in the grand scheme are vapid.

Dark Symphony posted...
In situations where they were ultimately vindicated they don't often end up back at square one. They're still shaken up, angry, bitter and resentful and their superiors know that so now they've been wronged AND they've been marked as a problem because they are upset they were wronged. Not exactly a 1:1 situation but the point I'm making is the stuff has an effect on the individual and I can see why people are worried.

Which is why I'm arguing the point that it's the people who aren't directly affected who need to be the reasonable ones. It's why judges recuse themselves if they're too close to a case to preside over it without the air of bias or some other conflict of interest. In the end we're all vulnerable to someone at sometime. The players change depending on the circumstances but the reality is that if someone really wants to f*** you over they probably can. A disgruntled driver who thinks you stole his parking space decides to key your car? You might win a lawsuit but you're only getting your money back, not your time. A cop having a bad day can probably find something wrong with your driving if he looks closely enough. Your boss can find some reason to b**** at you if he so pleases. But the warning signs for that kind of personality trait should be taken seriously when deciding who to put in a position of authority in the first place. After all, someone who would both know an employee was innocent but also mark them as a problem for being mad about the initial accusation is probably a s***ty boss in general.

Dark Symphony posted...
Why do we insist on taking anything said on twitter as an official presidential statement?

Well...
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: STEROLIZER

STEROLIZER
1 month ago#125
Bodied on them boys he did!

Seriously tho, WTF has this topic morphed into. Its like a women's studies lecture in here.
---./|,-``\(o)_\,----,,,_........................Love is like a bottle of gin
---( `\(o),,_/` : o : : :o `-,..............But a bottle of gin is not like love.

User Info: CVGuile

CVGuile
1 month ago#126
It really isn't. We're still talking about Harada. Where did you expect the conversation to go?

User Info: STEROLIZER

STEROLIZER
1 month ago#127
Castlevania Territory?
---./|,-``\(o)_\,----,,,_........................Love is like a bottle of gin
---( `\(o),,_/` : o : : :o `-,..............But a bottle of gin is not like love.

User Info: CVGuile

CVGuile
1 month ago#128
Huh?

User Info: STEROLIZER

STEROLIZER
1 month ago#129
CVGuile posted...
Huh?


I don't take myself too seriously unless I got too.

Reading this topic word for word has burnt me out lol
---./|,-``\(o)_\,----,,,_........................Love is like a bottle of gin
---( `\(o),,_/` : o : : :o `-,..............But a bottle of gin is not like love.

User Info: Dark Symphony

Dark Symphony
4 weeks ago#130
CVGuile posted...
I'm curious where your line is with this. After all, "characters are just functions" was arguably ComboFiend saying some crap--at least in the sense that it probably wasn't a rehearsed statement or sanctioned by Capcom. But that doesn't mean it wasn't dumb. After all, the big issue overall in video game PR is that all these insiders jabber on about things in their games in a way that blurs the line between their role as an official representative and just some guy shooting the s*** with us over a beer. Plus Twitter is as much of a place to make public statements as an interview, even if most tweets in the grand scheme are vapid.


I would say the key difference is that while Twitter is sometimes used as a medium to say useless nonsense as well as make formal announcements, (which it would be good for if the circumstances were clearly delineated since short phrases make good ads) a formal interview is traditionally a situation where you measure your words a bit more carefully. Combined with the fact that "these characters are just functions when you think about it" doesn't read like two people just talking; it reads like a rehearsed response. Add to that the fact that it was a touchy subject about existing decisions made for an existing product and I'd say the circumstances aren't really 1:1. Haradasanz was jabbering over some hypotheticals. It didn't sound like he was making any formal decisions on the fly. Combofiend was explaining away something that had come to pass. Had the question been "Haradasanz, why did you guys cancel the Viking character?" and he gave the same response I'd be right there with you even though I would still respect people's concerns about the mob.

CVGuile posted...
Which is why I'm arguing the point that it's the people who aren't directly affected who need to be the reasonable ones. It's why judges recuse themselves if they're too close to a case to preside over it without the air of bias or some other conflict of interest. In the end we're all vulnerable to someone at sometime. The players change depending on the circumstances but the reality is that if someone really wants to f*** you over they probably can. A disgruntled driver who thinks you stole his parking space decides to key your car? You might win a lawsuit but you're only getting your money back, not your time. A cop having a bad day can probably find something wrong with your driving if he looks closely enough. Your boss can find some reason to b**** at you if he so pleases. But the warning signs for that kind of personality trait should be taken seriously when deciding who to put in a position of authority in the first place. After all, someone who would both know an employee was innocent but also mark them as a problem for being mad about the initial accusation is probably a s***ty boss in general.


It's touch to articulate in my brain but I get what you're getting at here in regards to being paralyzed by things that are outside your control. I heard something today that said it's a good idea to list out the things you agree on first so that you don't end up proxy debating elements of a position you don't disagree with.

I think one key thing to consider is that, while often times people are just thrown to the wolves so others can feel good about themselves, there is another common form of mob justice that is focused on giving people a faux form of control over their fate and I can understand why people take it. The public apology being a perfect example. A lot of calls for such capitulation are designed very specifically to give the person on the hot seat the feeling that they are making their own bed because "all you have to do is this thing to undo it." It obscures the whole "this is going to happen to someone anyway" angle.
  1. Boards
  2. Fighting Games
  3. Harada w/ his take on SJW pandering...