Complaints About Language In Reviews

In a "news story" that I find sort of relevant to the recent discussion, Paula Deen got a standing-O at a recent public appearance

How is this a headline CNN story??!

It was only several hundred people and it was in Florida of all places.

Anyway, I think its funny because its newsworthy for some reason, and because it shows there will be an audience for people regardless of what they say or the words they use

Legomancer wrote: No one is talking about anyone owing anyone anything.

But they have, and you did as well, in your article. I think you don't realize that it's precisely what you're saying, amigo.

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.

You specifically tell people that if they have something to say, they should only do it on your terms. This is entitlement. This is being owed.

All that's been said is, "I read for X. If I don't find X, I read something else instead."

No, it's not; if it were, we'd not be having this discussion, which for posterity I'd add is very interesting and instructive...if it were at BGG it would've already exploded into verbal attacks and moderator intervention. What was said is this: Write how I want you to write. In that article it said...

I know you don’t want to be viewed as one of THOSE geeks who takes this all way to seriously, but man, there’s got to be some kind of middle ground, somewhere you can stop before you’re overcompensating to a level one has to assume is parody. It’s just comics and boardgames and movies. I don’t want a deep, beard-stroking analysis of the stuff; nobody, especially me, is going to read that. Just tell me about the thing without having to see how many nerdbro bingo spaces you can fill.

The middle ground...the compromise...nerdbro bingo squares... all of this is telling the reviewer who you are lambasting (whomever that happens to be, I can't say with surety that it's me or if it's others) that they have to find that middle ground, have to compromise. But there's nothing given in return aside from one click and perhaps one and a half minutes of scanning by the reader, which in my estimation is not a whole hell of a lot, especially when they were unsolicited.

No one's demanding anything of you, just stating their opinions on shit and moving along if they don't like it.

I'd argue that you are, and readers are. "Change what you write or I will make your life difficult" is what is happening to the OP. "Write what I want or I will lambaste you publicly" is what is happening to the subject of your article. But I submit that in the OP's case, they do have something to offer - widened readership - whereas in your case, you offer nothing. There are a famous business analogies that compete: "for every 1 person that complains, there's 26 that don't"...on one hand, but on the other is..."for every 100 happy customers, you'll receive only a handful of complaints"... which indicates that you may have 10,000 readers that love you but only 100 of them will complain which means 2700 are unhappy but silent. So, if both are right, you get a net gain of 7300 people that enjoy a given work and 2700 people that don't, with 100 complainers. Seems to me that I'd rather do what I do in any given endeavor, maintaining my 7400 happy clients and giving up the 2700. If I were to change my practices, all of the sudden I ~MIGHT~ get the 2700, but did I alienate the 7300 by not serving their interests? There's the compromise argument, but it's still iffy..it may or may not happen. From a raw math standpoint, it's just bad business to do so.

I wrote about these things on my blog, because, well, it's my fucking blog, so physician, heal thyself.

I get that - totally venting - but the question is this: why do you care? Why was it worth writing? The first paragraph said...

The writer was someone whose name I was familiar with, but someone I hadn’t read much of, and when I clicked on the link I was reminded why. He writes in a style I call, due to my biases, “nerdbro”.

If you know how he writes, and you know your biases, then why the fuck go there? Why then after having your confirmation would you take the time venting about it when you KNEW that you'd not want to read it? It's going out of your way to be offended and then write about how offended you were (not offended in the traditional sense but having your sensibilities offended)

Write whatever you please however you please, but in the case of the OP no one is obligated to publish it and in Pete's case no one is obligated to read it, nor are they prevented from criticizing it if they feel so inclined.

It's that last bit that I don't get. Why criticize if you know you're not going to like it? To what end?

I have ~200 subscribers, down from an all time high of maybe 250. I've had over 200,000 page reads. SOMEONE is reading this rubbish. SOMEONE is happy with the 'nerdbro' style. My point is that there's a market for 12" black dildos. They exist. People buy them. The fact that you don't like them doesn't invalidate them, and writing about how much you hate giant 12" black dildos because women shouldn't need 12" of anything, especially black ones, means fuck all to anyone who makes them and anyone who uses them. So why write it when you KNOW you don't like them? If you look at the motivation, it most assuredly IS "I am better than you" kind of rhetoric. There's no other feasible explanation for taking the time, writing the blog entry, and publishing it.

I tend to look at "to what end" in everything in my life, both personal and business. Once you get motive figured out by deductive reasoning, many things become clear. As one final sidebar, I'd like to point one thing out - none of this bugs me a bit, none of this offends me or hurts my feelings. The one thing that I thought was unfair, and I mean truly unfair, is that you know my friend, but you don't know me, so therefore how can you possibly know my motivations for writing like I write without consulting him first? Or asking anyone here, Dave Denton being foremost, since these people KNOW ME, personally? You note that I'm a nerd trying to say I'm not one of "those nerds" but you don't know Jack nor Shit about me, my culture, my motivations, my personality...so how can you claim that I do these things you say are "for effect", which indicates that you assign a motivation, when you don't know what I'm about? That is the one thing that really resonated with me and had me wondering just who the fuck you think you're talking about...because it most assuredly couldn't have been me.

Now, if playing board games makes me a "nerd", and talking like a sailor and using unsavory metaphors makes me a "bro", then hey, I guess you have me all figured out. I submit that you don't have to be a nerd to enjoy games (my wife is far from a nerd but loves Pandemic) nor do you have to be a "bro-dude" to talk like a sailor and use unsavory metaphors since many of my friends are veterans, some highly decorated, and talk as I do (it's where I got it from FWIW) without ever having surfed, been to the California "valley" or even use any hair product.

You cannot assume something from the very few characteristics you know about a writer - that they play games and talk like cunts. All you know about them is that they talk, and are probably cunts, or at least talk like them. That is ALL you know. It's like saying Matt Loter is a "homo-lover" or whatever and leaving it at that....you miss that he's a sweet, loving guy who loves games, loves people, and loves to have fun. If you only associate him with the only one attribute, you do yourself a disservice because as with most people, you can't define them with one hyphenated set of adjectives.

BUT..if you had to do that for me, try this: "Sociopathic-ultraviolent-crass-but-loving-man-who-sometimes-enjoys-boardgames-as-well-as-myriad-other-interests"

Well alrighty, then.

I don't think people meant Pete in particular when talking about salty or crude writing style in boardgames... but I would be a fool to not think he'd take it that way OR to not think that it sure seems like they meant him specifically.

JonJacob wrote: I don't think people meant Pete in particular when talking about salty or crude writing style in boardgames... but I would be a fool to not think he'd take it that way OR to not think that it sure seems like they meant him specifically.

Dave and I are talking primarily about me in this case, but he's talking about me and the thousands of "nerdbro dudeskis" (did I get that right?) that bury the germ of wisdom in a sea of homo jokes (I don't actually recall any of those in my blog, although you could call some things misogynistic, I guess..?) meant to make meatheads cheer.

I take no offense and I am quite interested in the conversation - I love to see how others think and their views on things, and try to figure out what motivates them. It's the sales guy/analyst in me, I think.

The one thing I'll say is that it's not as if there's an unrelenting tide of crass metaphors or salty language in any but the really negative reviews...mostly I sprinkle things in more than anything else. I can't see someone using my material in a stand-up act as most of the articles are informational with some stuff that popped into my head (or a note I took because I thought it funny) at the time.

For example, I looked at my most recent article and I saw that there was no salty language or "over-the-top" stuff whereas with the Toe-To-Toe review there was all kinds of it. I think my mood and how much I liked the game has a lot to do with what I write. I still say my favorite line about any game I've reviewed was in that one: "The one thing that was missing from the sea of adverts in the bag was the one thing that should've been required, which was a pamphlet from a suicide prevention service." I still laugh at that one.

Black Barney wrote: In a "news story" that I find sort of relevant to the recent discussion, Paula Deen got a standing-O at a recent public appearance

How is this a headline CNN story??!

It was only several hundred people and it was in Florida of all places.

Anyway, I think its funny because its newsworthy for some reason, and because it shows there will be an audience for people regardless of what they say or the words they use

Who is Paula Deen?

Schweig! wrote: Who is Paula Deen?

A really shitty cook.

But a pretty good racist.

JonJacob wrote:

Schweig! wrote: Who is Paula Deen?

A really shitty cook.

But a pretty good racist.

You could have said a crappy cook; it is more politically correct. Like I give a shit.

JonJacob wrote: A really shitty cook.

But a pretty good racist.

I guess it's hard to be a racist and a good cook.

Just go to any restaurant in Mexico. Most of the people down there that I've met are all racist, so by extension, I reckon they're racist by default and the restaurants I've eaten at are wonderful, so they cook well too.

The difference is that in Mexico, while everyone is a racist, they are all quite happy to admit it and not a single fuck was given by anyone else. Very liberated place.

I especially like how they liberate heads from bodies. My country doesn't put out travel advisories often but there are two different advisories out on Mexico right now. Recommending against non-essential travel and the like. Too many dead Canadians.

Anyway, I'm sure the restaurants are great.

I was there from Wednesday through Friday. I used to go down once a month. It's a matter of perspective.

See, if you go to Juarez, Nvo Laredo, Reynosa, Matamoros, or Mexico City, you're going to have some crime and cartel activity. If you go to Guadalajara, Tijuana (not the shitty parts), Monterrey, or the resorts, you'll be fine. Cartels aren't stupid - you don't kill your customers.

That said, the police station a block from my boss's hotel got attacked by a hand grenade on his last trip, in what is normally a safe area.

The analogy I use is that in Detroit, someone will kill you for your shoes, in Mexico, they'll kill you for the laces alone. I'm OK with that. Where I grew up, it might've been considered a 3rd world country.

SuperflyTNT wrote: Just go to any restaurant in Mexico. Most of the people down there that I've met are all racist, so by extension, I reckon they're racist by default and the restaurants I've eaten at are wonderful, so they cook well too.

The difference is that in Mexico, while everyone is a racist, they are all quite happy to admit it and not a single fuck was given by anyone else. Very liberated place.

Are you Mexican or how did you manage to regularly dine in racist Mexican restaurants? When I said racist above that was in reference to rejecting other cultures*. Y'know like not using certain ingredients/recipes (=worse cooking) or not letting foreigners eat at their restaurant (=less income =worse cooking).

Also "Most of the people down there that I've met are all racist" raises two questions:

a) Is that like saying: "60% of the time, Mexicans are racist every time"?
b) How do you manage to meet that many racists? I've been to other countries, but some guy openly acting racist has been pretty rare. I guess people don't act racist toward me because I tend to act politely (and not use foul language).

Maybe Mexicans make fun of fat, white American tourists (not saying that you are), but that isn't really racism. Racism is more like attributing negative stereotypes to a superficially defined group of people. Y'know, like saying all Mexicans are racists.

*) Races don't exist really. We're all African apes.

I'm not. I'm a superhuman overlord.

Schweig! wrote: Are you Mexican or how did you manage to regularly dine in racist Mexican restaurants? When I said racist above that was in reference to rejecting other cultures*. Y'know like not using certain ingredients/recipes (=worse cooking) or not letting foreigners eat at their restaurant (=less income =worse cooking).

I'm not Mexican. (I'm also not very fat, but thanks for depicting me as Pedro Gordo, my wife got a laugh). When I go to Mexico, I walk around everywhere. I check the wine stores and do tastings, I check the art studios, and I eat in all kinds of restaurants. I've been travelling regularly to Mexico for maybe 15 years, and I know a great many people there. I have many very dear friends there and we've discussed how uptight us gringos are in the USA.

What it comes down to is that in the US, you have "Californians, Southerners, Northerners" and then clear-cut racial divides. It's pretty obvious. Down in Mexico you have unique groups of people as well, but within "Mexican" there's "Negro, Mulato, El Espanol, Indio". Each makes fun of the other groups, and themselves, as a "race", so to speak. But the difference between there and here is that down there, it's accepted to a great degree. For instance, here, the joke is that "the definition of "nigger" is the black gentleman who just left the room" where down there, they call each other racist names all the time and have a good laugh, both of them. Here, people hide their racism and laugh between friends, but telling a racist joke in public while sitting at a dinner table at a restaurant is not off-limits.

It's just a different culture. Of all the people who are the most made fun of, without a doubt, it's the gringos. And if you go down there with a US attitude, you'd be pissed off all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a pinche gringo, or "white servant", for lack of better translation. It's just the nature of things there. I always respond that when asking for something in Mexico, esperamos que manana, manana, manana. (expect it tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow). It implies laziness, which is the stereotype. All in good fun, we all have a laugh.

The one thing I should note is that it's not just racist...the entire country is made up of a half continent of smart-asses. It's making fun of everything - clothes, feet, breath, whatever. The only thing that is off limits down there is food - you don't make fun of food. That's some serious shit ... you're not a real Mexicano unless you try the frijoles y tortillas wherever you go.

Also "Most of the people down there that I've met are all racist" raises two questions:

a) Is that like saying: "60% of the time, Mexicans are racist every time"?
b) How do you manage to meet that many racists? I've been to other countries, but some guy openly acting racist has been pretty rare. I guess people don't act racist toward me because I tend to act politely (and not use foul language).

Pinche German...

Mexico is just a very different place, culturally. Doing business there is harder than in China, even, if you can believe that. It's a wonderful place with many great values, but the bottom line is that they just don't take themselves or "things" so seriously as many other places, especially the USA. The magic is that I speak pretty decent Spanish and I'm always with the local salespeople that work for me, so I'm kind of "parte de la familia" when I'm there - people speak freely around me because I speak freely around them. I'm just not much for bullshit and politics or time-wasting, and down there, that's a good thing when trying to transact business. Hell, I think that's anywhere.

Maybe Mexicans make fun of fat, white American tourists (not saying that you are), but that isn't really racism. Racism is more like attributing negative stereotypes to a superficially defined group of people. Y'know, like saying all Mexicans are.

No, as noted above, it's a free for all. Gringos are always the butt of the jokes when around, which is fine, but at the end of the day, everyone is always messing with everyone. The only word I can use is "friendly", I guess, but that's not really the right word. They just happen to be "friendly" in a way that includes making fun of everyone, everything, and racist...but not in a "I'll never hire a mulato" way, it's more like a "hey, you indian asshole, get over here" kind of way. It's not discrimination as much as using racial slurs.

So I guess racist isn't really the word...that's my gringo brain's only easy way to say it...down there it's just that using racial slurs, but without real malice, is commonplace. I think it's very loaded here - Mexico abolished slavery long before we did, and there's no real 'discrimination' down there as far as I've witnessed. Here, there's still a lot of anger and vitriol between the races, which is funny because black dudes talk about slavery still while Chinese, who had pretty much just as rough a time, don't seem to look back on the railroad slave days and hold the grudge. Very odd.

I guess I just tend to notice things more than some, and as I said before, I analyze people and cultural things to kind of understand things better. Get the motivations understood so that I can interact with them better. Just my 2c on all of this; a shame we don't have some Mexican members at F:AT so they could explain the culture better than I can.