Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[Phisi]

I'm sorry, I just have to: *Ostracized*

I'm sorry, I just have to: *Ostracised* ;P
I'm sorry if I am not the first to do this but I just couldn't resist

 

[Danial]

I like EC and Jim, but there does seem to be insane and harsh insults against anyone not instantly hating Mass Effect 3 or even Defending them. Problems people seemed happy to ignore before suddenly seem drastically important and irritating.

I never feel Spoken down too by EC, its a demi teaching style of voice designed to speak to everyone rather than just the people in the know. Its no worse then most documentary voice overs such as Attenborough(Admittedly Sir David is 90million super mega times better at it). Stuff like this can't just aim for the people "in the know", the EC style to me seems to shout "some people might not know this" rather than "No one will know this" which is when the dreaded "speaking down too" happens.

Jim's style is aim at who ever the fuck he feels like,Its a Drastically different style than EC's but its one he is very good at. EC try for a more aimed and "teaching" style while Jim just speaks from the heart. EC's can come off as Cold, but are usually more factual and sourced than Jims, which are more heart felt and Ranty, but heartfelt can often either miss the mark by a mile(first 3) or nail it so completely that you watch the thing about 30 times (the recent Games piracy 3 parter and the Gay people in Mass effect ones).

Still, they dared to not want the ending changed in a game, so i guess they suck or something, If Jim had come out and defended ME3s ending, I wonder how different these topics are.

PS

Someone mentioned before that Jim is a bad Journalist due to him changing his opinion. NO, BAD, NO. We need more journalist's who change there opinion due to new evidence. The world is full of journalist's who just stick to what they know and Fox news there way though life.

 

[irani_che]

Extra Credits Work in Games Industry

Sterling Works in Games Reviewing Industy


a critic is once describes as a guy who knows the way but cannot drive a car

 

[Bato]

One thing to know about the Extra Credits guys.
They're smart, they know what's up and down, maybe a bit preachy but they're right. They have an optimistic opinion of things which is good.
And yes James has a giant ego, but he's also a damn genius.
I got this quote banging around in my head that I can't remember where it's from "Their ego would be insufferable if it wasn't so justified." Is sort of what I think of with him.

And then there's Jim. I love you Jim.
He's smart, he hits the nail on the head, and he's right in the loudest and most pompous manner he can present it in so people will listen.

But who they're speaking to would be two different groups. EC to the Developers and Aspiring Developers.
Jim to the Publishers and everyone else. You can't use honey coated words with Publishers, they're lawyers, they have no soul and have never even had honey. They probably think it's some kind of poison.

 

[Naqel]

Jim has his feet on the ground, EC have their heads in the clouds. We need both for gaming to be "tall", so to speak.

 

[tofulove]

by reading the thread, the vocal majority is for jim, but looking at the votes ec has the most votes. i find that interesting.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Extra Credits Work in Games Industry

Sterling Works in Games Reviewing Industy


a critic is once describes as a guy who knows the way but cannot drive a car

I worked in the games industry. I don't think that my opinions would really be great solutions to any problem. Nor do I think theirs are, or that their previous vocation qualifies them. Not in this industry, anyway.

 

[StBishop]

I can't pick.

That's like asking if I'd like a chocolate cake or a book. They aren't the same, they aren't even similar.

I prefer EC to the Jimquisition, but I like Jim in a broad sense (articles, podtoid, podcastle and the like) even more.

 

[Gatx]

I was on the fence about Jim initially but stuck around cause he made good points, and he's definitely gotten better. For the life of me I cannot look at the pictures though, so I just listen to it as a podcast.

Jim has his feet on the ground, EC have their heads in the clouds. We need both for gaming to be "tall", so to speak.

That's beautiful.

 

[Insane_Foxx]

I like both, i find jim more entertaining, i find EC more informative.

keep seeing pretentious come up with EC, and, i don't know, i guess being informative is pretentious.

 

[James Ennever]

I was on the fence about Jim initially but stuck around cause he made good points, and he's definitely gotten better. For the life of me I cannot look at the pictures though, so I just listen to it as a podcast.

Jim has his feet on the ground, EC have their heads in the clouds. We need both for gaming to be "tall", so to speak.

That's beautiful.

Ditto

 

[Something Amyss]

By that, you're actually taking their right of free speech away, instead of warning or protecting them.

And yet, absolutism in free speech will infringe on other rights. Especially if you can threaten to kill someone with impunity. If absolutism is the only way to live in a free society then we will never be free, because we can assert our freedoms as reasons to harm another, be it verbally or physically. We are not truly free because we cannot walk around hitting people, either. Do you believe that? Should free expression allow me to burn down your house just because I don't like what you're saying? Perhaps we could consider it a political statement. Hell, Westboro Baptist has successfully gotten away with PHYSICAL bullying because "free speech."

One of the landmark cases fathered the saying "My right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose." I know, I know, you are arguing that the laws, the Constitution, and probably the SCOTUS are all wrong, but this is a very reasonable marker for the establishment of any right. You cannot argue the basic rights of one party at the expense of basic rights of another. Nobody should have the right to threaten another. Which, incidentally, is what most hate speech laws tend to come down to. This is why the KKK and WBC can still protest despite the so-called vast unfairness that people aren't allowed to "hate."

Since harassment is apparently a basic human right (as blanketed under free expression), you literally create the potential for a point where a woman (or anyone else for that matter) can be systematically stalked and harassed. Sure, they might have the choice to leave, but they do not really have any safe haven from someone who really wants to make their life hard. What is to stop someone from just following them? What right does someone have when literally cornered by free speech? None? That's just awesome.

Completely specious reasoning that seems only to favour one side (the aggressor) of an incident and ignore any basic human rights of the other, but hey, who cares?

If we must have absolute rights to be truly free, then we will never be truly free. And at that point, it seems the argument becomes utterly meaningless.

The thing that people who perpetuate the "sticks and stones" line of thinking forget is that humans are social creatures. The main reason we've survived as a species is because we've stuck together in groups, and have evolved to reflect that. Back then, those who were not part of the group tended to die, so being ostracized from a group was something akin to a death sentence. Despite coming such a long way since then, we still have those old instincts of "part of the group is good", because we still gather in groups, and socialize in a way that compliments that. That's why harassment and insults have such a dramatic effect on people, despite looking innocuous from the outside. They make that person feel as though they aren't part of the group, or that there's something wrong with them. You'd be hard pressed to find any study of human behavior that doesn't say that such feelings can, and frequently do, cause severe emotional distress, which again, just isn't fair, especially when the things they are being insulted for are out of their control (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation). You can tell them to "just sack up or find somewhere else", but those kinds of feelings are hardwired into their DNA, and its not anyone's place to antagonize them like that.

Especially as this appears to be your first post, I just wanted to say I enjoyed your take and appreciate your particular insight.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Well, Jim has all the intellect of a puddle of mud and is about as enjoyable to watch as aforementioned caking dirt puddles. So I guess Extra Credits win.

Not like it was a hard fought victory, mind. Stalin would look charismatic and endearing next to Sterling.

 

[Num1d1um]

By that, you're actually taking their right of free speech away, instead of warning or protecting them.

And yet, absolutism in free speech will infringe on other rights. Especially if you can threaten to kill someone with impunity. If absolutism is the only way to live in a free society then we will never be free, because we can assert our freedoms as reasons to harm another, be it verbally or physically. We are not truly free because we cannot walk around hitting people, either. Do you believe that? Should free expression allow me to burn down your house just because I don't like what you're saying? Perhaps we could consider it a political statement. Hell, Westboro Baptist has successfully gotten away with PHYSICAL bullying because "free speech."

One of the landmark cases fathered the saying "My right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose." I know, I know, you are arguing that the laws, the Constitution, and probably the SCOTUS are all wrong, but this is a very reasonable marker for the establishment of any right. You cannot argue the basic rights of one party at the expense of basic rights of another. Nobody should have the right to threaten another. Which, incidentally, is what most hate speech laws tend to come down to. This is why the KKK and WBC can still protest despite the so-called vast unfairness that people aren't allowed to "hate."

Since harassment is apparently a basic human right (as blanketed under free expression), you literally create the potential for a point where a woman (or anyone else for that matter) can be systematically stalked and harassed. Sure, they might have the choice to leave, but they do not really have any safe haven from someone who really wants to make their life hard. What is to stop someone from just following them? What right does someone have when literally cornered by free speech? None? That's just awesome.

Completely specious reasoning that seems only to favour one side (the aggressor) of an incident and ignore any basic human rights of the other, but hey, who cares?

If we must have absolute rights to be truly free, then we will never be truly free. And at that point, it seems the argument becomes utterly meaningless.

The thing that people who perpetuate the "sticks and stones" line of thinking forget is that humans are social creatures. The main reason we've survived as a species is because we've stuck together in groups, and have evolved to reflect that. Back then, those who were not part of the group tended to die, so being ostracized from a group was something akin to a death sentence. Despite coming such a long way since then, we still have those old instincts of "part of the group is good", because we still gather in groups, and socialize in a way that compliments that. That's why harassment and insults have such a dramatic effect on people, despite looking innocuous from the outside. They make that person feel as though they aren't part of the group, or that there's something wrong with them. You'd be hard pressed to find any study of human behavior that doesn't say that such feelings can, and frequently do, cause severe emotional distress, which again, just isn't fair, especially when the things they are being insulted for are out of their control (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation). You can tell them to "just sack up or find somewhere else", but those kinds of feelings are hardwired into their DNA, and its not anyone's place to antagonize them like that.

Especially as this appears to be your first post, I just wanted to say I enjoyed your take and appreciate your particular insight.

I don't remember saying that physical violence or arson was covered by freedom of speech. We're talking about SPEECH. Nobody claimed anyone should be able to burn down or hit anyone or anything because of freedom of speech.

On the other point, and I'll adress your alt's version of it too, what you forget is that anyone that is being harassed probably has a voice themselves. These people are not mutes. If the aggression is verbal, as you call it, assault, why would the victim not be able to counter? What makes you think the victim can't possibly talk back? As I said like three times now, it works both ways. And it's an insult to the victims to assume they're too weak to fight back, it's a generalisation, and it's a baseless assumption that forms the foundation of your argument. And I'm sick of people making that assumption. Just to draw from anecdotal shit now, I've been through the shit, I've been bullied, and getting up, turning around and hitting back takes not even half the balls people claim it does. By telling these victims they're too weak to fight back, to resist, you're actively insulting their abilities and their mental strength.

Once again, this is not about physical violence. I'm not arguing with your "fist ends at his nose" thing. No one here is. I'm not arguing that any group should be allowed to physically harm another on grounds of free speech. Anyone has the tools to fight back against "verbal assault".

And of course, we're not truly free. But we easily could be in regards to speech. The thing is, if you were to propose that we rename it to limited speech, the argument is over, and you can keep your constitution. Just don't pretend we have something we don't have. Don't call it freedom of speech if it isn't. But somehow I have the feeling that living with limited speech is gonna make a lot of people very angry now that they realized how limited they are. So we keep pretending.

 

[Zenron]

I think that Jim crosses the line between silly and just plain stupid sometimes. Generally I quite like him but at other times he kind of annoys me. I pretty much always like Extra Credits on the other hand, so I went with them on the poll.

 

[Gunner 51]

Here's an alternate take on it, think of religons and ask yourself who deserves your respect the most out of Jehovah's Witnesses and a Frothingly Angry Street Preacher.

Both of them talk about spirituality based things a lot and try to spread the word as it were. But they go about it in two different fashions.

The Street Preacher shouts at the top of his lungs and tells everyone how they're all silly for believing in something contarary to him and they're all going to hell. The shouting and ranting annoy the public at large and they ignore him for his lack of manners and think he's a narrow minded fool along with the rest of his ilk.

The Jehovahas are very polite, friendly and engaging - albeit very strange. But everyone knows that they mean well. As such, they get more respect and will be listened to more than Mr Street Preacher. This is why I think that Extra Credits deserve more respect than Mr Sterling - on the grounds that they aren't hot headed and immature like Mr Sterling and as such, they make gamers look better.

It's better to be weak and rightous than strong but wrong. But that's just my two cents as the Americans would say.