Complaints About Language In Reviews

It's a stupid, arbitrary social construct. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You comb your hair in the morning for a reason.

S.

ThirstyMan wrote: Sorry, but this is wrong.

Filthy language is a relative concept and not an absolute one. Calling someone a donkey, in Arabic, is far worse than anything Pete writes, but you choose to ignore that because it doesn't offend you personally or is not seen as deviance.

Deviance from what? Social norms? There lies madness...

Is that in response to me?

Obviously a person competently communicating in a language should be aware which words can be understood as offensive.

I personally see very little purpose in using wilfully offensive language, although word usage isn't a pressing issue to me either. Offensive words tend to reveal a person's intention better than substitute words, which is why I'm not the greatest fan of political correctness. But I don't oppose it either, because promoting profanity as some sort of freedom struggle seems rather ridiculous to me.

wadenels wrote: If you don't like the way a person writes, then why are you reading it?

If nobody reads what you write due to foul language, then why are you writing it? As some form of therapy?

Shellhead wrote: But if one of the doctors were to instead say "the patient was shitting", suddenly it's considered crude and offensive, even though defecating and shitting mean the exact same thing.

They describe the same act but they aren't the same thing. The different expression only exist in reference to the social aspects connected with the act. Doctors use a different term, because it's not a social taboo to talk with your doctor about your bowel movement. The same goes for killing and murder for example; same act, different social circumstances: soldiers for example don't murder each other.

Count Orlok wrote: Pete - there's nothing shocking about your language. While your reviews have some interesting content, the sheer tedium of your 'humor' really keep me from even bothering to venture to your site. If you're fine with alienating a potential audience, so be it. Just be aware that your persona is limiting, and don't complain when anyone calls you on it. As Sag says, we each choose how to present ourselves, especially online.

I think you misunderstand - I don't write reviews for any other reason than to write them. For me. So, if my potential audience is me, and me alone, I'm perfectly content with that. What I think is grating is that there's some 500,000,000 web sites and the idea that some faux-outraged nerd is going to harp on the use of a certain word or phrase they disagree with...I mean, taking time to actually write a review of a review...is madness.

To that end, the Dave Ex Machina article lamenting the "bro-dude style" was nothing more than the usual "I'm better than them" social feather-fluffing that is expected in a virtual, anonymous world where the only thing that seems to separate people's content is their ability to self-promote. Just move on. Find another site. It's not like there's not 5,000 blogs from guys wanting payola games for review out there in the void. Every 5th BGG member is a "reviewer" these days. The 20 seconds spent complaining to me about my language (that shall invariably fall upon utterly deaf ears in this regard) would've been far better spent doing something useful, like typing "X board game review" in a Google search field. I mean, if you have enough time to go around and be Internet Police Super Writer/Consumer and writing about all the evils in board game reviewing, you really need to get another hobby.

I think it's the futility of it that bothers me. The idea that complaining will change people. I think, maybe, if they do change, then it was faking; "reaching" for humor or using crassness to get some sort of shock response in order to differentiate. But, that said, most people will not change and it's arrogant to assume that your offense is more important to anyone but yourself than the writer's interests in writing whatever makes he or she happy in writing it.

But for me, a guy who comes up with outlandish and sometimes bat shit crazy things off the cuff on an almost moment-to-moment basis, I can't change. I am what I am and I thoroughly love ME. Until that changes, the rest of the universe can fuck right off.

As an aside: last night I was at my buddy's house and I told the story of how I accidentally heel-kicked myself in the balls while trying to get a shoe off. I lamented that I ended up in the fecal position. He tried to correct me "fetal position" and I replied, "No, it was the fecal position. I was in a ball on the ground, shitting myself." Some people would think that's crass and I'm sure it probably is, but he and I were laughing our asses off for a minute or two and for me, that one minute of laughing is worth 1,000 of your minutes of being offended.

that last sentence of yours is a slippery slope, Pete. It's completely fine if you're at home or in someone's private residence that finds that funny (I found it funny, by the way). But there's a reason Michael Richards didn't use that in his defence for dropping n-bombs in a comedy club. No one cares if Michael Richards finds it funny, it was offensive to many people. He can make those jokes at home but publicly… if you're living in a society then there are norms.

I'm not saying fecal position is like saying the n-bomb, I'm saying that saying that you find it funny is more important than stuff offending other people is only relevant if they don't hear it.

I disagree - I have no interest in making other people feel comfortable. The societal norms are handed down by the same people that murder in the name of national interests, pastors that steal church money while preaching honesty and by priests who move pedophiles from place to place. Fuck 'em. I get 100 years of life, tops, and I'm going to do everything in my power to enjoy every last second of them to the best of my legal ability.

So Kramer dropped an N-bomb. He took his licks. Now he's pretty much known universally as a racist cunt and his career took a sharp nosedive. That's the price for saying what's on your mind, unrepentant. So I write things that I find hilarious. ~200 people concur because I have about that many subscribers. If I had nil subscribers, it would not bother or deter me.

I think that's the key to the whole blogging thing: if you change yourself in order to appease the masses and play nice, a little piece of you dies with each adjective you write from that point on. Those folks need to re-evaluate their reasons for writing. Are you writing for them, are you writing for you, are you just looking for some payday? If you're not writing for yourself, you're doing it wrong.

See, I'm not interested in a cult of personality or getting boatloads of free games. I promote games I think merit promotion (hence my lack of articles for months at a time), and I write because I like to write, but I couldn't care less if anyone reads it. They get precisely what they paid for...one click. If they enjoyed it, hey, great for them. If they didn't, well, go watch a Tom Vasel video, or read Mike or Matt's stuff, or Ken's stuff (if he ever writes anything again LMAO). I won't be mad. I don't need to walk around GenCon and be King of the Nerds, giving out autographs or high-fiving. Sometimes I want to educate people or answer questions that I was asking and the answers weren't easily found, sort of as a public service (such as with my Miniatures 101 articles). Sometimes I want to tell everyone that a game was fucking miserable, so they don't make the same mistake in buying it. But always, I write for me, as an outlet, as a fun hobby.

I just want to live my life as I see fit, have an assload of fun, and that's it. If someone is in the way of that, they are probably cunts to begin with, and I couldn't care less about their opinion. It's that simple.

Sagrilarus wrote: It's a stupid, arbitrary social construct. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You comb your hair in the morning for a reason.

S.

I'm supposed to comb my hair? I KNEW I forgot something. Good thing I sleep through morning.

Cussing upsets me.

For fuck's sake, I never said that cussing is wrong or doesn't belong in an article. I never said that scatological or "shocking" humor doesn't have any place in a game review. I never spoke out against any of these things qua these things.

What I spoke out against was seeing this shit in "reviews" that didn't otherwise add anything else to the review. You want to be shocking, be shocking, I don't give a fuck. But when I'm reading a review of a boardgame, videogame, comic, or movie, I'm not there for your hilarious poop and fart jokes, I'm there to get some more information about the item. I don't need to read six paragraphs of your hysterically irreverent "style" if I only find out you didn't like it and thought it was dumb.

I don't find that stuff overly funny; not because I'm offended, not because I think I'm better and more sophisticated than you, but because I've literally been involved in online discussions since 1984 and I have heard this shit done and re-done so. many. times. For thirty years I've endured scores of hilarious dudes become the first person in the world to ever hear of felching. I've had three decades of folks assuring me that their dozens of black friends think their nigger jokes are a fucking scream. Whether it's a persona or your real self, I don't much care. It's just not interesting to me in general, and if the writing is intended to have a purpose, such as a review, I sure as shit ain't interested in wading through a river of it to find out if there are a couple of sentences that get the job done. This shit is, for me, right up there with endless Monty Python and nerd references. That well has been long fucking tapped as far as I'm concerned.

And that's fine. I don't read that stuff and go elsewhere for information. I'm not "censoring" or otherwise stomping on anyone's free speech. Write however the hell you want. But also keep in mind that your freedom of expression doesn't mean that people can't say "I don't like this crap", even if their reason is "It offends me".

Maybe this all comes off as being highfalutin' and elitist. It's not meant to. It's meant to come off as weary. But on the other hand, come on, you're not the fucking Gandhi of rape jokes over here.

For any following along:
www.daveexmachina.com/wordpress/?p=6508

Dave, I think you misunderstand. I pointed you out only because you wrote an article about it most recently. My point is that yes, you have every right to write a diatribe lamenting the sea of poorly-written humor or "bro-dude style" as you put it, but I don't understand why anyone would take time out of their day to bitch about something they got for free, that wasn't delivered into their inbox, and that you actively have to go in search of. It's a waste of time and makes people look like old Puritans who go out of their way to be offended just so they have something to bitch about.

That's my point about these kinds of complaint articles, or the gold standard for retarded Puritanism, the morons who leave nasty comments about "I'll never read your stuff again" on EVERY REVIEW THREAD YOU'VE WRITTEN, over at BGG. It makes no sense to me. It's as if the commentator's life is so utterly devoid of meaning that they have to go out of their way to read something offensive, just to be offended, so that they have ANYTHING interesting to say, and as it turns out, it's not all that interesting.

For the record, I have no idea what "felching" is, and I never, ever, ever, have made a racist joke on my site. What do you call four Mexicans in quicksand? Quatro Sinko. There you go.

Now, you have to remember that simply because YOU don't like something, or find it without merit, that others don't. Some people can't stand Eddie Murphy just as some people don't like Bill Cosby. It's a matter of taste. You are not the arbiter of "funny" for anyone but you, and you have to remember that. Let me give you an example: My buddy Mick was a sailor. He had some civilians on his ship during maintenance and inspection. In this process, all of the Dog Zebra fireproof/airtight hatches (read: 1000 pounds) were secured open. A contractor tripped, hit a DZ hatch, and it fell closed on his head, splattering his brain all over my buddy and the deck. When Mickey (my buddy) was asked about it by the base shrink, as ordered by his CO, he said, "The only thing that I thought of in the moments after the accident were, 'I have a headache THIS BIG (arms outstretched) and it has DOG ZEBRA written all over it' (in parody of the Excedrin commercial).

I thought that was so utterly wrong, and hilarious, that I still laugh about it. Some people would be shocked, or dismayed, or whatever. But that's not a joke for them. It's a joke for people like me.

You recently wrote of your NSA buddy, "

Being with Rasputin gave one a license to break rules. You could say rude things in elevators and shock the other riders. You could attempt to vandalize a public service utility (but dammit they bolted Reddy Kilowatt’s head on too well to steal). You could, oh, I don’t know, steal cars. It was all okay because you couldn’t get in trouble, since Rasputin worked for the NSA. Being with him was exciting, especially for me, who was otherwise just a boring, typical, unremarkable nerd. That someone so interesting had chosen me to hang out with was amazing. I wanted to rise to the task and try to be as interesting as he was. Thankfully, I didn’t do so as much as other people I knew did.

You see, I am 'Rasputin' to your 'unremarkable nerd'. You have to understand that I am similar in many ways to Matt (Loter) in that I live life to the fullest and have little in the way of fear. I've been stabbed. I've been shot at. I've been in a shit-ton of fights. I'm simply a completely different person than you, and people like you. I'm not better, or worse, just different and I have a different philosophy. It's really that simple. I cannot possibly understand your way of thinking just as you cannot possibly understand mine. So, when you say that you don't 'get' or 'like' my brand of humor, I cannot be anything other than unsurprised. Now, in my defense, I don't use tired Monty Python references or whatever - I write what pops into my head, or what other people in my group have said. That's kind of what you have to understand in order to make sense of it all...I hang with sick degenerates that have seen people blown up, chopped up by a P-3 prop...and we all have fucked up senses of humor.

But more than that, I find almost all reviews to be so utterly boring that I cannot read them. At least 95% of all reviews are so boring, poorly written, uninformative, and specious that they don't merit my eyes scanning a single sentence, and so if I'm going to wade through a sea of tedium and tired and wholly unspecific metaphors including, but not limited to, "interesting decisions", "fiddly", et Cetera. I find just as much offense in having to wade through tedious and tired rehashes just as much as you are tired of wading through my, and others, indiscriminate use of jokes. The difference is that, for me, I write like I talk, like I think. I don't attempt "to shock" or "to be funny". For me, this is just me, and while I am ~not~ at home in a sea of nerds generally, I share a common interest: games.

It is what it is. I don't think you're so much an elitist as much as someone who can't relate to myself or my life, or my sense of humor, and that you should contemplate the idea that your article about "bro-dude writers" is fallacious in one thing: I'm not "a nerd" the way you want me to be in your mind. I happen to play games, yes, but not very often due to the fact that my group is made up of other non-nerds. I am the sole guy who owns the games, I am the one pushing for the game nights, which rarely happen these days. More often than not, we're in Mickey's pool room playing pool and getting 'elevated' in one fashion or another. I don't follow comics. I don't go to every Con. I don't base my life around where I can find a group, where the game stores are, et C. Nerd shit doesn't matter to me in almost all cases. I like games, and only a very scant selection of them.

This is how many nerds have been reviewing nerd stuff for a while now, and while it was kind of funny at first, it’s now utterly played-out and tired and I can’t believe it’s still happening.

This is the part that really kind of says it. "Nerds have been reviewing nerd stuff" classifies the writer in question, but you don't know anything about the writer. It's like saying that if you happen to like to write, and like to play board games, that you must subscribe to all things nerd or self-classify as a nerd. I mean, if liking board games makes me a nerd, so be it, but I'm just me...I don't generally self-classify as anything. I like to work out, I like to play sports, I like to drink, fuck, and fight. Does that make me a hooligan? See what I'm getting at? One trait does not make the man and you're assuming, in the article, that it's someone stretching.

The worst part is — and this is almost always the case — there is a germ of a good, funny, and interesting criticism in the review but it’s been pushed aside for the stupid posturing nonsense.

POSTURING. That's again a point that you're assuming that it's being written to get "street cred" or whatever. Did it ever occur to you that it was written simply to be written, not for the audience? That the writer simply talks and writes like that because he ACTUALLY thinks like that?

What I’m saying here is, if you ARE a person who wants to talk about these things and is motivated to do so and has things to say, don’t squander it with this facile nerdbro bullshit. Don’t waste my time and your words on trying to be Seanbaby in 1999. Get a point across and don’t fuck around trying to get a bunch of meatheads to cheer over a homo joke. You are probably smarter than that.

Again - you're putting YOUR PERSONALITY into the equation. You write for an audience, but some people write to write. You assume that the writer is writing to somehow please some "meathead" audience or that it's facile (superficial). It's that you cannot possibly relate to someone who thinks like I do. I view your complaint about this just as if I had written all my reviews in Spanish and that you're fucked off that I can't just write in English like you want me to, because that's what language you think in.

The problem here is that you think people do things for appearances or to appease, but the fact is that people do things for reasons you simply can't seem to get your head around. It's not their problem, unless they are truly uber-nerds who are trying to impress or differentiate and are stretching, it's yours. You always have the option of not reading those kinds of reviews, and the height of arrogance is that you take time out to bitch about them when you've paid nothing, were not compelled in any way to go to the site, and essentially are bitching about someone not doing what you want even though you're not due a GOD DAMNED THING from them. This is how I see it: "Oh, you stumbled on to my site, read an article, got mad, and took time to write an article about hating my reviews because it didn't meet your standards??? Fuck you, you miserable, egotistical cunt. (not you in particular, Dave, just in general, and really even more for the BGG'ers who leave shit-tastic comments on my reviews)" You got what you paid for. I, and every other reviewer, owe you not a single fucking thing. Keep that in mind when criticizing reviewers, because that's the salient point: we owe you absolutely nothing.

The whole article, and most people's complaints, all boil down to: "If you want me to read, you need to conform to my way of thinking, and you need to write how I want you to write." Your article is EXACTLY that. The follow-on question that has to be asked is, "Why? Who are you to dictate to me how I am supposed to write?" You catch my meaning? And even were I to do so, and take you as the final arbiter of all things good and holy, would that not alienate others who love my writing? The magic in all of this is to write what you want, for you and only you, and to not seek fame, fortune, subscribers, et C. That's the only way to please the only one who really matters in all of this: the generator of the content.

tscook wrote: Cussing Capitalism, and Pete, upsets me.