Some transmogrifying of my best equipment to look like prettier yet lower stat Legendary weapons and armour later, and…
“Problem,” “Royals,” and Other Pop Songs Transformed into Flowery Sonnets
cc pinkaurigreyjoy - get these on them classroom walls, gurl!
Solar energy that doesn’t block the view
A team of researchers at Michigan State University has developed a new type of solar concentrator that when placed over a window creates solar energy while allowing people to actually see through the window. It is called a transparent luminescent solar concentrator and can be used on buildings, cell phones and any other device that has a clear surface. And, according to Richard Lunt of MSU’s College of Engineering, the key word is “transparent.”
[read more at MSU] [paper] [picture credit: Yimu Zhao]
The last few weeks in videogame culture have seen a level of combativeness more marked and bitter than any beforehand.
First, a developer—a woman who makes games who has had so much piled on to her that I don’t want to perpetuate things by naming her—was the target of a harassment campaign that attacked her personal life and friendships. Campaigns of personal harassment aimed at game developers are nothing new. They are dismayingly common among those who happen to be women, or not white straight men, and doubly so if they also happen to make the sort of game that in any way challenge the status quo, even if that challenge is only made through their very existence. The viciousness and ferocity with which this campaign occurred, however, was shocking, and certainly out of the ordinary. This was something more than routine misogyny (and in games, it often is routine, shockingly). It was an ugly spectacle that should haunt and shame those involved for the rest of their lives.
It’s important to note that this hate campaign took the guise of a crusade against ‘corruption’ and ‘bias’ in the games industry, with particular emphasis on the relationships between independent game developers and the press.
These fires, already burning hot, were further fuelled yesterday by the release of the latest installment in Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Tropes vs. Women in Video Games’ video series. In this particular video, Sarkeesian outlines “largely insignificant non-playable female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty or racy flavoring into game worlds. These sexually objectified female bodies are designed to function as environmental texture while titillating presumed straight male players.” Today, Sarkeesian has been forced to leave her home due to some serious threats made against her and her family in response to the video. It is terrifying stuff.
Taken in their simplest, most basic form, a videogame is a creative application of computer technology. For a while, perhaps, when such technology was found mostly in masculine cultures, videogames accordingly developed a limited, inwards-looking perception of the world that marked them as different from everyone else. This is the gamer, an identity based on difference and separateness. When playing games was an unusual activity, this identity was constructed in order to define and unite the group (and to help demarcate it as a targetable demographic for business). It became deeply bound up in assumptions and performances of gender and sexuality. To be a gamer was to signal a great many things, not all of which are about the actual playing of videogames. Research like this, by Adrienne Shaw, proves this point clearly.
When, over the last decade, the playing of videogames moved beyond the niche, the gamer identity remained fairly uniformly stagnant and immobile. Gamer identity was simply not fluid enough to apply to a broad spectrum of people. It could not meaningfully contain, for example, Candy Crush players, Proteus players, and Call of Duty players simultaneously. When videogames changed, the gamer identity did not stretch, and so it has been broken.
And lest you think that I’m exaggerating about the irrelevance of the traditionally male dominated gamer identity, recent news confirms this, with adult women outnumbering teenage boys in game-playing demographics in the USA. Similar numbers also often come out of Australian surveys. The predictable ‘what kind of games do they really play, though—are they really gamers?’ response says all you need to know about this ongoing demographic shift. This insinuated criteria for ‘real’ videogames is wholly contingent on identity (i.e. a real gamer shouldn’t play Candy Crush, for instance).
On the evidence of the last few weeks, what we are seeing is the end of gamers, and the viciousness that accompanies the death of an identity. Due to fundamental shifts in the videogame audience, and a move towards progressive attitudes within more traditional areas of videogame culture, the gamer identity has been broken. It has nowhere to call home, and so it reaches out inarticulately at invented problems, such as bias and corruption, which are partly just ways of expressing confusion as to why things the traditional gamer does not understand are successful (that such confusion results in abject heartlessness is an indictment on the character of the male-focussed gamer culture to begin with).
The gamer as an identity feels like it is under assault, and so it should. Though the ‘consumer king’ gamer will continue to be targeted and exploited while their profitability as a demographic outweighs their toxicity, the traditional gamer identity is now culturally irrelevant.
The battles (and I don’t use that word lightly; in some ways perhaps ‘war’ is more appropriate) to make safe spaces for videogame cultures are long and they are resisted tempestuously, but through the pain and suffering of people who have their friendships, their personal lives, and their professions on the line, things continue to improve. The result has been a palpable progressive shift.
This shift is precisely the root of such increasingly violent hostility. The hysterical fits of those inculcated at the heart of gamer culture might on the surface be claimed as crusades for journalistic integrity, or a defense against falsehoods, but—along with a mix of the hatred of women and an expansive bigotry thrown in for good measure—what is actually going on is an attempt to retain hegemony. Make no mistake: this is the exertion of power in the name of (male) gamer orthodoxy—an orthodoxy that has already begun to disappear.
The last few weeks therefore represent the moment that gamers realised their own irrelevance. This is a cold wind that has been a long time coming, and which has framed these increasingly malicious incidents along the way. Videogames have now achieved a purchase on popular culture that is only possible without gamers.
Today, videogames are for everyone. I mean this in an almost destructive way. Videogames, to read the other side of the same statement, are not for you. You do not get to own videogames. No one gets to own videogames when they are for everyone. They add up to more than any one group.
On some level, the grim individuals who are self-centred and myopic enough to be upset at the prospect of having their medium taken away from them are absolutely right. They have astutely, and correctly identified what is going on here. Their toys are being taken away, and their treehouses are being boarded up. Videogames now live in the world and there is no going back.
I am convinced that this marks the end. We are finished here. From now on, there are no more gamers—only players.
The police can go to downtown Harlem and pick up a kid with a joint in the streets. But they can’t go into the elegant apartments and get a stockbroker who’s sniffing cocaine. —
I’ve seen more drugs behind the brick walls of my private college than I have ever even heard of back home in my hood.
It’s a known fact that you will find more drugs,especially hard drugs, in the suburbs than in the hood
There are so many drug users & dealers at my job right now it isn’t even funny, & I’m not talking about (just) weed.
(Source: thoughtcatalog.com, via cognitivedissonance)
Late game Crusaders look AMAZING, man.
Anonymous said: Do you have a beef with Jontron or was that one twitter interaction like a joke or something?
I was out at dinner with Zoe Quinn, watching her get harassed in realtime by a cabal of irate internet denizens. That was around the time Jontron decided to give his nod of approval to the people behind it. After a few beers, I said “I am going to Tweet a picture of me giving the middle finger to a toilet at him, because fuck his shit." I didn’t go on the warpath or prepare a longwinded argument about why I disagreed with his statements, I sent him a photograph of myself flipping off a toilet.
Sorry, sometimes I’m twelve.
I don’t know Jontron personally. I don’t follow his work on YouTube, but I’m aware of how popular he is. I think it completely sucks that someone with such a large following can be so destructively oblivious to how much influence they have, and how much weight his opinions have. One of the most dangerous parts of internet/YouTube culture is that people can get famous without leaving the house, attracting a huge fanbase without the slightest impetus for personal growth, aside from some snarky comments. When people become famous, on the internet or otherwise, people often stop growing up. When there are thousands of people applauding your every move, why should you listen to someone telling you to check yourself?
When I give advice to depressed kids on this stupid blog, I mostly do it because it seems like a nice thing to do, but it also helps me keep my head out of my ass. It forces me to think about a time when a whole lot less people gave a shit about who I was or what I thought about anything, and to keep everything in perspective. It makes me question myself and consider being in different circumstances. Does that mean I’m a perfect, flawless glistening spectacle of human perfection? Fuck no. But I try to keep an open mind an not let my opinions and attitude ferment, clot, and crystalize into a personal dogma of pigheaded stubbornness.
Like I said, I don’t know Jontron, so I’m not trying to pass judgment on him. However, I didn’t like what he had to say about a friend of mine, so I sent him a picture of myself making a rude hand gesture at a thing that people poop into. I wouldn’t say we have beef, per se, and I’m not sure if that counts as a joke, but it’s something.
I’m sticking my dick in a beehive by even addressing the Zoe Quinn/Jontron situation, but fuck the entire issue. Fuck it into a burning pile of broken shit and nuke it from orbit. How Zoe Quinn has been treated has made me want to quit my fucking job. No matter how much you disagree with her views or disapprove of her lifestyle choices, if you think what Zoe’s done warrants the amount of shit that the internet’s sent her way, you need to take a step back and reassess your entire fucking worldview.
…Hey, if anyone decides to screencap this post and put it on 4chan, can you throw some fun photos of animals along the side? I just think that would be a nice time for everyone.
And if Michael Brown was not angelic, I was practically demonic. I had my first drink when I was 11. I once brawled in the cafeteria after getting hit in the head with a steel trash can. In my junior year I failed five out of seven classes. By the time I graduated from high school, I had been arrested for assaulting a teacher and been kicked out of school (twice.) And yet no one who knew me thought I had the least bit of thug in me. That is because I also read a lot of books, loved my Commodore 64, and ghostwrote love notes for my friends. In other words, I was a human being. A large number of American teenagers live exactly like Michael Brown. Very few of them are shot in the head and left to bake on the pavement.
The “angelic” standard was not one created by the reporter. It was created by a society that cannot face itself, and thus must employ a dubious “morality” to hide its sins. It is reinforced by people who have embraced the notion of “twice as good” while avoiding the circumstances which gave that notion birth. Consider how easily living in a community “with rough patches” becomes part of a list of ostensible sins. Consider how easily “black-on-black crime” becomes not a marker of a shameful legacy of segregation but a moral failing. — Ta-Nehisi Coates, being amazing. (via politicalprof)