DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT... MAYBE TRY NOT MOANING ABOUT IT - Mr Biffo

30/5/2016

55 Comments

 
Picture
Like most people, back in the mid-90s I was a fan of DJ Chris Evans, before his ego and arrogance spiralled out of control. He rightly disappeared for the best part of a decade, before reinventing himself as the BBC's safe pair of hands. 

You wouldn't want to be him this morning. Or, indeed, him at any point over the past six months.

The knives have been out in quite spectacular style for the man who plucked the Mantle of Clarkson from inbetween the split lips of an assistant producer; the usual media outlets - looking for any excuse to kick the BBC in the thighs - have been willing Top Gear to fail ever since Clarkson, May and Hammond departed. 

Suffice to say, the social media response to last night's revamped Top Gear was typically reactionary... bemoaning Evans' shouting, the awkward studio links, and the lack of chemistry between him and Matt LeBlanc - all things that can be sorted out given time. Pilot shows - and first ep of the new Top Gear can be considered a pilot - are rarely the best episode of a series. 

Evans is nowhere this morning. He's taken the week off of his generally affable radio show, and isn't on Twitter. And you can't blame him; he's been in the media game long enough to be able to predict exactly what was going to happen today:

  • top gear is utter shite
  • Get your ego under control and STOP SHOUTING. Oh, and the show was shit.
  • Knob..........
  • One you should wear a hat to cover up the ginger crop. Two you should keep your mouth shut

And so on. Whatever you think of Evans, something you absolutely have to give him credit for is that he has handled the unprecedented grief he's been getting with something approaching superhuman levels of restraint.

Even if you believe reports that he's been bullying people to the point of tears, and waggling his penis at every passing crew member, not once - publicly - has he lapsed into "Woe is me" whingeing. And last week it transpired that he's been managing to do so while his mother battles cancer. 

Games people could learn a lot from him.
Picture
DICKS WITH STICKS
You might've read the piece I wrote at the weekend, about the entitled dicks who are forever badgering games journos for failing to write exactly what they want them to write.

​However, we only know about this, because a lot of games journos tell us about it.

They tell us about the abuse, the name-calling, the "death threats", because they share it with us. After writing my piece at the weekend, I started to wonder whether they might be better off just shutting up about it.

"Why should games journalists - or anyone - have to put up with abuse from strangers?" you might ask. Indeed, they shouldn't have to, but nobody knows how to do anything about it.

Also, it's an occupational hazard, part of doing a job that brings you into contact with actual people. Strip away the empathy that comes from looking someone in the face, and you're coming into contact with a raw person - without that mask we all wear.

You're dealing with people, and people are frequently arseholes - and all the more so when they don't have to look at the effect they're having on you. I mean, look at road rage.

I've lost count of times I've been bellowed at by other drivers. One even tried to ram my car on a motorway, because I pulled a funny face at him after he cut me up. Ask anyone who has worked in a shop, or as a bus driver, and they'll tell you the same: they get abuse all the time. And it's because they're not seen as people as such. Again, empathy isn't there. Are games journalists getting it worse than anyone else? Really?

GOOD GRIEF
It sucks, I know, to get grief online. I feel for anyone who has to deal with it. Part of what I hated about my own hassle was the anonymity. It can be scary. It took a fair bit of detective work on my part to find out who was responsible... and then when I did, that was replaced with a feeling of "Why do they hate me so much? I wouldn't treat them like that..."

Mine got bad enough, and weird enough, that I called the police, then disappeared from the Internet for 7 years. I didn't really see how moaning about it was going to change anything. I didn't know how else to stop it. I was obviously inviting it in some way, not handling it well, and so stepping away was the only real option.

​All that me crying about it online would do - though cry I did away from the Internet - was invite more hassle. And I think that complaining about it is only going to bring more hassle for anyone else that does so. They'll be seen as crybabies, and a bully loves an easy target, someone who can make them feel powerful.

Heck, one of the turning points for the hassle I got was after I posted a blog about being bullied at school. It was like they could smell blood, or something. Things changed very noticeably for me after that. I wasn't braced for any of it... but made sure I was ready when I came back. 

​I'd been through my Pudsey The Dog experience - I knew that if I could keep a smile on my face while that tsunami of negativity washed over me, then I was ready for whatever the Internet had to offer.

Amazingly, I've not really had any grief since returning as Mr Biffo... but if I ever do I'll either ignore it, or - if it ever reached the levels it did before - I'll take it further, through legal channels. Fortunately, since I went away last time, laws have been changed. The police are no longer as powerless as they were.
Picture
A FIRE? A REAL FIRE? OH. A BONFIRE...
For all the talk of tackling online harassment, I wonder whether tackling it at all is ever going to do any good.

People are always going to be people. You can't change what they think of you regardless of whether you can stop them saying it to you. You can't control that.

And if you don't like it... moaning about it will likely only invite more of it into your life.

​If it is bullying, if that's who you're dealing with, then giving them the satisfaction that they're succeeding in damaging or humiliating you is exactly what they want. If someone sets out to do something, then they want to see that they've succeeded, ideally.

That only happens, in the case of online harassment, if you tell them it has happened.  

The Internet is always going to be The Internet. Trolls have never gone away. Cyberbullies aren't going anywhere. Harassers, misogynists, arseholes, are part of the fabric of online interaction - and part of the landscape if you want to draw attention to yourself by having a job that puts you in the line of fire.

If you choose to stand in a bonfire, and your trousers catch fire, then you've only got yourself to blame. Either equip yourself with a pair of fire-retardant pants, or get out of the fire. By all means tell friends and family away from the Internet, but standing there moaning online about it - fishing for sympathy and support - is only going to cause more fire to happen.

FROM THE ARCHIVE:
NO MAN'S SKY DELAY BRINGS THE DICKS OUT OF THE WOODWORK - BY MR BIFFO
THE DIGITISER2000 FRIDAY LETTERS PAGE
WHY DO PEOPLE HATE GAMES JOURNALISTS? - BY MR BIFFO​

COME AND MEET MR BIFFO HERE ON JULY 30th:
Picture
55 Comments
Keith
30/5/2016 12:23:55 pm

I think you're right. I've done a bit of a 180 since you first started writing about Internet abuse on here, and something I've stupidly only really just properly realised is that, quite literally, there's more to life than the Internet; not posting about abuse/harassment publicly doesn't mean being silent about it - it might mean getting in touch with with a good mate and having a massive rant in the pub, it might mean going to the police, it might mean any number of things, but it's actually only onlookers and bystanders who want to be part of a narrative or debate who benefit from inevitable responses to this crap.
In the school where I work, there are issues between staff members all the time, but the people with dignity are the ones who take steps to resolve their issues by going through appropriate channels, or occasionally confiding in trusted friends; the people who immediately go public tend to be the ones who seem to need the conflict and drama in order to validate themselves.
So, yeah, good article. Cheers

Reply
HermitHerman
30/5/2016 01:15:32 pm

I actually did a full 360 since he started writing about internet abuse, then got sick a little bit on my shoes.

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
30/5/2016 01:45:46 pm

I did a 1080 kick flip Air Christ.

But I was playing Tony Hawk 5, so the game immediately catapulted me out of the level, flailing wildly, and then my console caught fire.

Rakladtor III The Terrible
30/5/2016 04:32:21 pm

I in fact had a complex operation performed, to have my entire body turned inside out. So far so good, no infections

MrPSB
30/5/2016 12:42:03 pm

Now you've done it

Reply
Mr Biffo
30/5/2016 12:44:40 pm

I'll be blacklisted. By everyone.

Reply
favus
30/5/2016 01:30:00 pm

Get off the internet! both of you!!!

Mr J Crikey link
30/5/2016 01:32:31 pm

Only once (that I can recall) have I been subjected to Twitter abuse as a direct consequence of something that I've written. The abuse was mild, the abuse was brief...

And the abuse came exclusively from supposedly professional games journalists.

Without naming names, a games site I'm sure everybody reading this will have heard of had published an interview with a prolific voice actor. Upon seeing this, as a spur-of-the-moment thing, I posted a tongue in cheek tweet that said something like 'never mind site X's interview with this person, read my interview with this person from four years ago. It's much better!'. I'm not saying it was a hilarious tweet, but I WAS joking. Heck it might result in three more people reading the interview and, sod it, I'm proud of that writeup.

Later that day, I got a few sneery tweets from writers you may or may not know along the lines of 'you're crap and jealous'.

It turns out that the freelancer who submitted the big site's interview, who doesn't follow me, had seen my tweet. I later found this may be because he follows a friend. Anyway, he clearly took the words at face value and interpreted my tweet as saying that his interview was shit and mine was amazing. His reaction? He sent me a private DM, politely asking if he was reading my tweet correctly and why I felt my interview was better.

No, wait, he didn't do that at all. He linked to my tweet so that I wouldn't know he was doing it and, in front of his thousand or so followers (which include a great many full-time journos), said something like 'look at this arrogant loser'. He was fishing for sympathy and praise, and looking at the replies he got quite a big haul.

I didn't react to the unsolicited abuse (though I did block one journo, who I already wasn't fond of), nor did I attempt to contact the freelancer in any way. I wasn't upset, but I was angry. Angry that this moron had potentially destroyed my freelance career before it had even begun, because at the time I wasn't engaged in any paid work. In fact it's only now that I'm carefully and seriously looking at pitching to multiple sites, and for all I know it could still come back to kick me up the arse.

The moral of the story? Don't be fooled by the holier-than-thou attitude taken by some journos. I'm sure some are genuinely thoughtful in their reactions to complete strangers, but I can't help but feel that they're in the minority.

Reply
Puffa Jacket
31/5/2016 12:11:00 am

It was Kotaku wasn't it? Either that or Polygon. Probs Kotaku though.

Reply
Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 01:46:27 pm

If people are forced to pay for Evan's show under threat of jail, they have every right to be as abusive (within the law) as they like IMO. Sure they could just not own a television but I consider access to television to be an essential "right" in the 21st century western world.

Evan's is receiving money and if you don't give him your money (pay the fine for not having a licence) the state will physically take you by force, put you in a cage, remove your freedom and you will lose your job/home/family etc.

If people get abusive over Clarkson's new show I'd simply tell them to shut their mouths and cancel their Amazon Prime subscription.

I don't dislike Evans at all. I am not a big fan of the giant PC safe-space that is the BBC though and would rather the radio side was privatised and the TV side go subscription-only. Make the service live within the means of the subscription payments they receive. If they are as good as they think they are then they wouldn't see much change as people would still choose to pay.

I'd get £150 back to spend on games, renting movies, Netflix etc as opposed to paying for something I never watch. The BBC would have the choice of catering to people like me with content that I deem to be worth £150 per annum...or making some cutbacks. Their call.

Top Gear was an awesome game, especially two player. I'd controversially rate it as highly as FZERO and Mario Kart. I loved Lotus Esprit on the Amiga but for me Top Gear was the ultimate game of its type and remains so to this day.

Reply
Hamptonoid
30/5/2016 02:26:55 pm

Well, yeah....we all have the right to behave like an arsehole. We also have the choice to waive that right.

Reply
The Best Of Superbeast
31/5/2016 06:36:49 pm

BBC: "giant PC safe-space"

Reply
Keith
30/5/2016 01:51:50 pm

That's frankly nonsense. The BBC isn't obliged to please all of the people all of the time, and the only circumstances under which one is obligated to pay the licence fee is if they use the BBC. A laid-on-thick vast exaggeration of the potential for jail for people who don't use the BBC at all isn't an excuse for behaving like an idiot

Reply
Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 02:41:33 pm

Nice strawman. At no point did I say that the BBC have to cater to all of the people all of the time. The BBC Trust however do demand that the BBC cater to all audiences. Even without that rule I'd say that it is a moral obligation given that they force everyone to pay for it.

In reality the BBC do not cater to me AT ALL. I never watch it.

I'd rather they didn't have a trust dictating that they cater to everyone but rather have subscribers that need to be retained to maintain their income. It would make their content more responsive to their audiences.

You are also posting misinformation about the licence rules. I wouldn't have a problem if you could simply not consume BBC content and be freed from paying.

You must have a TV licence if you watch Live programmes. You are wrong to suggest that it is only if you watch the BBC. It applies to any "live" TV (even on subscription channels) and "live" does not refer to things like live sports, it refers to watching anything on any channel whilst it is being broadcast - and that includes recording it on Sky+ etc.

If you do not pay your TV licence and watch/record any live TV you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine you go to jail.

I am forced to pay for a service I do not watch. If I refuse to pay for said service I either have to face draconian restrictions on what I can watch or go to prison. A quick Google search shows that 180,000 are prosecuted each year. Obviously most pay up rather than be thrown in a cage (a few people each month) just as you pay your protection money to the local hoodlums rather than be beaten up.

If you want to extort money from people using those menaces then you deserve any and every bit of abuse that you receive. Not illegal abuse like death threats obviously but any insult is acceptable in my opinion. I don't care about the fee fees when you forcibly take money from people.

If Evans doesn't like that, he can follow Clarkson and go work for a private sector broadcaster where only people that want to watch his shows have to pay for it. Then I would defend him against any abuse and defend his right to keep his salary private.

But as long as they are threatening me with court and taking my money for something I don't use...

Reply
Keith
30/5/2016 03:57:44 pm

Ah. Looks like your anger here is a perfect storm of being fervently anti BBC as well as outraged that someone might suggest you act like a decent human being. Good luck with that. It's genuinely a bit scary reading someone with your outlook and sense of entitlement. Actually justifying posting abuse. I'd be embarrassed.

Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 04:46:06 pm

If I threatened you and forced you to give me £150 I'm sure you would be on the phone to the police demanding that they do a lot worse than call me "sh*t" or a "kn*b" on Twitter!

Of course you presumably like having your entertainment subsidised with money taken by force but want to talk about decency?

If you want to be decent, you could pay for your fun out of your own pocket? Why don't you pony up and pay for my BT Sports? That would be decent?

But anyway people are free to slag Evans off within the law. He can block/mute them or just ignore it. I'm sure he won't be too sad sat at home with the millions of pounds he took from people that had no choice but to pay.

I am free to condemn or condone those people for calling him "sh*t" (oh the humanity!).

I'm doing neither in this instance because I had money extorted out of me but am not abusive by nature. Instead I turn a blind eye to those doing it - just like others might give a sly wink at anti hunt activists etc whilst not getting involved with condemning or condoning it themselves.

Of course I've been vocal on the interwebs at defending Blizzard from those sending harsh abuse over some of the stuff relating to Legion or the Overwatch stuff. As I say, they don't have to pay for it. They are not entitled to anything. They are owed nothing. They have no justification for being abusive and no sympathy or empathy from me. I don't turn a blind eye to that.

Jenuall
30/5/2016 10:52:04 pm

So, is is income tax also "extortion"? Is council tax? I've not visited a GP or hospital in years, why should I have to pay for these services I don't use? I don't drive a car, so why am I forced (with threat of legal action etc.) to pay for the upkeep of the nations road system?

You are not "giving your money to Chris Evans" you are paying for a wide range of services, of which Top Gear represents a miniscule slice.

Puffa Jacket
31/5/2016 12:14:10 am

Nope. You don't have to pay road tax if you don't use the roads, why should you have to pay BBC tax if you have no interest in using the BBC?

amazingmikeyc
31/5/2016 07:49:10 am

You do pay for the roads, that comes out of general taxation. Vehicle Excise Tax goes into the general pot as well, and that's based on emissions (it's free if you've got an electric car for example)

Maybe a better analogy is "Why am I paying for the upkeep of the M25!? I never use it!" (the answer is because on balance it's probably good for everyone)

Superbeast 37
31/5/2016 08:37:09 am

As I said in another post, certain public services need to be paid for collectively (roads, defence, police) and others could be funded privately (health, education) but there are strong moral and societal advantages to collective funding.

TV services, cell phone networks, Internet services etc have no excuse to be collectively funded by the state. Anymore than we should all pay £500 a year and get our video games or pornography free at the point of use.

The market can provide those services perfectly whereas in the case of the police or roads (aside from limited toll roads) it wouldn't work.

We are so brain washed it was actually big news in the press recently when a guy tried to call Sky TV to cancel and recorded the phone call that took an hour or so before he succeeded.

Yet no one bats an eyelid when the BBC not only refuse to cancel but take 180k people to court, fine them and jail a few others each month.

Even worse, when someone calls a millionaire rolling in that cash a "kn*b" and tell him that the show they were forced to pay for is "sh*t", all the white knights come out to defend him and make out that he received horrendous abuse.

No, he just got called a kn*b. He is not a millennial; he won't need counselling and treatment for PTSD over a tweet saying "ur a kn*b mate".

Jenuall
31/5/2016 04:02:28 pm

Yep there's no such thing as "road tax" - Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on emissions effectively and goes directly to the general treasury fund, it is not used to pay for roads. We all do that regardless of our personal need for or benefit gained from the roads.

Spiney O'Sullivan
30/5/2016 02:02:16 pm

This isn't dissimilar to what I was saying the other day in another thread: the trouble is people, not just gamers. Fans just feel ownership over stuff, and go to some pretty crazy extremes, especially when given relative anonymity. And that's whether it be football, music (have you seen the behaviour of 1 Direction fans?), or TV shows. For a good example of the latter, look at the Sherlock Holmes fandom, who have sent actors (including female ones) and writers plenty of death threats over different things, and that's a much less male-oriented fan space than gaming has been traditionally been seen as.

Sadly gaming is an easy target, and while I have no doubt that the it contains plenty of crazed malcontents who hate all sorts of people, it's sad that a lot of gaming journalists have decided that the best way to go for a bit of mainstream acceptance is to go after the same old targets and stereotypes that the Daily Mail used to play on. That said, it's absolutely worth discussing big problems in the community (insofar as it is one), but there's an increasingly sneery attitude that has driven a pretty big wall between games media and a lot of players.

(as always, I feel the need to disclaimer this with "Not a Gamergater, just someone who's a bit tired of being indirectly maligned, and saddened to see the games press doing the work of the Daily Mail/Express")

Amusingly, Jeremy Clarkson used to be a games journo for all of two articles, and clearly felt himself above it all, before moving onto bigger things. Check out Guru Larry's video of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGN6EP5Klg

Reply
Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 03:33:49 pm

It isn't mainstream acceptance that games journos have been going for. On the contrary, they are fighting against the mainstream and it's systems.

Essentially they are applying cultural marxism to gaming in an attempt at altering what is currently mainstream. The mainstream currently supports the free market and the freedom of the creator/artist. The journos are trying to change that albeit relying on the old mainstream stereotypes (as used by the Daily Mail etc) to attack their opponents - those opponents being the "wrong" products and the "wrong" consumers.

The end result is that they sound identical to the old conservative religious right but their agenda is far left.

The mainstream belief is that anyone can produce art or entertainment about anything they like with the only condition being that you need to pay your rent and buy food and comply with our relatively liberal laws. If you don't like what is on offer then you go out and create it yourself assuming anyone wants to buy it.

The journos are now part of a movement who are unhappy with the outcome that free system produced (e.g. GTA V selling 50m, Sunset selling 5k) and are attempting to use their positions of influence to distort the market into delivering a different outcome.

In the journos eyes, when faced with free choice, consumers made bad choices and bought the wrong products. Therefore the wrong entertainment with the wrong identity/messages succeeded and the right entertainment with the right messages is languishing. The journos want to reverse that outcome.

Of course because you can't buck the market, their strategy appears to be leading to the market inflicting a dose of "creative destruction" on their own businesses.

I am referring to the journos I think you are referring to. There are others who aren't acting ideologically but are simply responding to the market and doing whatever works in terms of generating clicks/revenue. Some are a combination of the two. It's never black and white.

Reply
Keith
30/5/2016 04:12:00 pm

Of course the flaw inherent to your argument is that if what is mainstream can't be engineered, you have nothing to worry about. And if what is mainstream can be engineered, then the obvious point is that something is unnaturally blocking what the free market has potential to do - in the case of what you're talking about, perhaps it's simply that gaming has long been caught in a circle of perception that it's for teenage boys only, perpetuated by the creatives catering mainly for that market.

If the end game is that video games become inspired by a wider spectrum of influences/experiences/ideas, then I'm all for it. The niche games which seem to exist more as guardian articles than actual games will always be niche, but if video games can get to a point where genuinely good ideas can get made even if they do come from a different place, that's great

Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 05:23:46 pm

Genuinely good ideas from any place can be turned into games. Even if mainstream investors won't take the risk there is crowd funding or just starting small and building up as many successful entrepreneurs have done.

I approve of that. Of course a "genuinely good idea" is one that people what to buy. Not just an idea that an authoritarian political ideologue approves of.

Quote: "And if what is mainstream can be engineered, then the obvious point is that something is unnaturally blocking what the free market has potential to do"

Non sequitur. There are plenty of countries where the mainstream has been manipulated by Marxists despite there initially being a perfectly functioning market with no unnatural blocks.

Indeed in creative markets the unnatural blocks are the Marxists themselves.

They always lead to less diversity in the market, not more. Thankfully they will all fail in the end just like those before them.

Fortunately in the global digital age and due to what I said in my first paragraph these people are doing more damage to themselves than the industry.

If they try to co-opt the mainstream then new products will simply crop up to replace those that have been infected. The money will go where the demand is. Trying to cheat free-will by manipulating those products that are already in demand won't succeed. They will be destroyed and green shoots will sprout in their place.

Rakladtor III The Terrible
30/5/2016 07:55:01 pm

I think a part of agenda to alter the mainstream, is to open it up to a female demographic as much as possible in order to push the market even further. Those at 'the top' primarily want to optimize the mainstream to generate as much revenue as it can. I think there will continue to be your GTA's etc, and continued outcry too, simply because there exist potential female consumers who can be coaxed in if they feel that the industry hates the same things about men that they resent themselves.

I'm becoming increasingly reluctant to fall back on history to predict how things will unfold, as I think the game has really changed since the internet arrived. Media are better equipped than ever to influence mass opinion, and even the wants and needs of the mainstream.

Seano
30/5/2016 02:11:53 pm

Methinks it's a bit of clumsy point or opinion (me clumsy!) The last couple of paragraphs, to me, mean that you conclude if you can't take the abuse in a role/job that you should choose to do something else.

Thinking about other professions, where does one draw the line? I have friends who have been attacked whilst at work; they are teachers and attacked by an adult in each case. Should try step away from teaching? Is being attacked by a parent par for the course in teaching? If someone wants to teach should they prepared to be attacked by a parent?

Just because it's t'internet doesn't mean it should be accepted that people can behave like dicks whilst using it. Where does fishing for support end and seeking like minded people to help improve things begin? Is this secretly all about Gamergate? Man this is confusing me.

And before someone beats me to it....

STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!

Reply
Mr Biffo
30/5/2016 02:18:02 pm

Er... yes and no. Look at it this way... if you're a teacher, and you can't take abuse/harrassment from parents and pupils without standing in the playground moaning about them within earshot... or, alternatively, going through the proper channels to do something about it... then maybe have a think about whether your approach is helping. Also, being attacked at work feels to me quite different to people venting online. There's a line which, once crossed, obviously needs addressing.

Reply
Sean Gleeson
30/5/2016 03:03:09 pm

True dat, on reflection the teaching thing was a clumsy analogy. Maybe my take on what you've written is more to do the difference between abuse (real world) and venting/abuse (internet world). Argh, blurred lines thiugh! Why so many shades of grey. Can't everyone just be nice?

I think I would like to see the way online abuse is thought of and dealt with more closely aligned with abuse that people perceive in a much more black and white way (forgive me for not giving examples as the two that spring to mind are for dealt with in anything close to a satisfactory manner).

Also, good work on writing something I don't really agree with - it has stopped me lurking...

Kelvin Green link
30/5/2016 02:30:53 pm

I thought the new Top Gear was quite good. A bit choppy, but as Biffo says, it's the first episode and first episodes are always a bit choppy.

I'm quite happy I drifted out of comics "journalism" before this new trend of internet crucifixion came about. I did get some complaints from DC fans on a forum, but nothing like the venom that's been spewed at the Captain America people this week. Egad.

Reply
Wicked Eric
30/5/2016 05:58:57 pm

Give me strength...

So anyone in the employ of a publically funded institution is fair game for abuse and harrasement because they are immune from market forces (apparantly the sole legitimate manifestation of free will).

lol

Reply
John
13/6/2016 03:05:42 pm

I love you :)

Reply
Superbeast 37
30/5/2016 07:33:05 pm

Calling someone "sh*t" or a "kn*b" as a one off is not abuse or harassment. To claim so is an insult to those that have been victims of the real thing.

The authoritarian left would certainly like to brand it as such to avoid uncomfortable criticism but it ain't going to happen.

If millions of people independently come to the conclusion that the show was "sh*t" and that Evans is a "kn*b" and independently send him a tweet to that effect within a few hours of each other then that isn't abuse or harassment either - even though from his end it will appear as if it is a "mob". When you have a large audience, sign up to Twitter and leave your permissions at the default, you are opening yourself up to the entire world. Deal with it.

Also because his show is funded by involuntary payments taken from the public, I couldn't care less what they say to him so long as they don't break the law - something which sustained harassment and abuse falls under.

They can't get a refund, they can't choose not to pay for it. I feel they are within their rights to legally vent their anger at that situation and if that entails saying "you are a kn*b and your show is sh*t" then I see no problem with it.

It would be the total opposite if they said it to Clarkson/Amazon.

Someone of Evans generation should be more than adept at dealing with a bit of harsh criticism especially when getting paid millions to do so.

I wouldn't even apply that to "publicly funded institutions" as a blanket rule. Granted the press do - they have no qualms about constantly lying and slagging off public sector workers (bar the untouchables like nurses and soldiers etc).

I personally differentiate as far as institutions go.

There are certain services that can't be privately funded because the freeloader effect would prevent it from working (e.g. police, defence, general highways) and there are other services where there can be private provision (health and education) but there is a strong moral and societal benefit from publicly funding it.

In the case of the BBC there is no justification for public broadcasting *on that scale*. It can provided commercially including free-to-air. Tenner a year for certain aspects of the World Service taken out of general taxation is more than enough. Even news channels can be provided independently under the current broadcasting regulations on impartiality. Entertainment shows like Top Gear have no place at all being funded publicly. Unlike a lot of the crap on the BBC it would actually be profitable (or would have been under Clarkson) in the private sector without cutting the budget and trimming the fat.

Reply
Wicked Eric
31/5/2016 08:45:29 am

I'm pretty sure the 'authoritarian left' as you describe it doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own fevered dreams.

Reply
Superbeast 37
31/5/2016 09:30:54 am

Just like the religious right in the 90's didn't exist either right.

Same arguments, different decade.

Gibley
31/5/2016 10:21:53 am

Sorry man I think you mistook this page for letters to the daily telegraph.

Reply
Rakladtor III The Terrible
31/5/2016 12:54:32 pm

Gibley If you can't stand the heat of the debate, check out IGN. Perhaps you'll be more entertained by Ninty fanboys calling each other poo poo heads

Gibley
31/5/2016 01:09:20 pm

The heat isn't the problem so much as the long-winded rants about leftists and free markets.

Superbeast 37
31/5/2016 02:22:05 pm

I get told that authoritarian leftists trying to censor speech (by claiming that "ur a knob" is "harassment" or attacking entire communities due to the behaviour of 1%) are part of my "feverish dreams".

Then along comes just such a person complaining because he doesn't like my speech simply because it is critical of his ideology.....and too long to read.

He offers no constructive arguments, adds nothing of value to the discussion but resorts to snide remarks and what really amounts to "stfu I don't want to hear you".

Basically creating a hostile environment in which people feel afraid/reluctant to express themselves unless parroting the group-think narrative. Echo chamber usually follows.


I could have just written:

1, "ur a kn*b" isn't "abuse" or "harassment".

2, Going out and calling Clarkson a kn*b is unnecessary because you can cancel your Prime sub and leave it at that. You are not entitled to demand anything of his private services or those of game developers.

3, Calling Evan's a kn*b is acceptable because of (1) and because you are forced to pay his wages and fund his programming and therefore have a right to criticise *if* you keep it legal.

4, I condemn any illegal behaviour.

Unfortunately because that type of shortened post gets twisted into all sorts of bizarre things mainly due to people not understanding the subject (TV licence law, the difference between TV/games and roads/hospitals) you are forced to write long posts explaining everything in detail to head off the inevitable misrepresentations and smears that follow.

Then people want to silence you because typing anything that conflicts with their world view or takes more than 10 seconds to read is deemed to be unacceptable these days.

2016, *shrugs*

Gibley
31/5/2016 05:17:17 pm

It's hardly silencing, I kindly suggested a more appropriate venue for complaints about the license fee!

I'm sure future posts will give you openings to rant about leftists\political correctness\how victimised white male gamers are\usual superbeast stuff, that are a bit more relevant to the subject matter of the posts.

Superbeast 37
31/5/2016 08:28:48 pm

Gibley, rather than sniping or "suggesting" (as you put it) where and when perfectly decent on-topic posts should go, try engaging instead - it's more rewarding.

I do understand why being exposed to views that you aren't familiar with within your social circles might be uncomfortable but contrary to what your lecturers/teachers/parents/friends/in-group might have told you, feeling "uncomfortable" or challenged by different views is good for you and not something to push away.

The topic was about abuse and how to best to deal with it especially if you are someone like Evans or Biffo and are exposed to a larger number of people than the average person.

My mixture of libertarian centre-right politics and tough working class values were integral to my position - that it wasn't "abuse" but "harsh criticism" and that it was acceptable due to the specific circumstances. That resulted in misrepresentations and misunderstandings from other posters that I felt it necessary to clarify in detail.

I'm sorry you didn't find the topic interesting or worthy of your input.

I don't recall ever stating that "white male gamers are victimised" and your snide dig at me about that does make me curious.

I can only assume you are referring to comments I have made in defence of gamers/nerd culture where innocent people of all races and genders have been smeared - although the group being smeared are inaccurately portrayed using a particular stereotype admittedly. I backed that up with statistics proving the innocence of the wider community.

Odd thing is, I thought you would be pleased to read evidence that gamers/nerds are innocent and that there isn't a widespread problem in our hobby? Yet you seem almost annoyed by the revelation? Bizarre.


Or maybe you are talking about topics where I referred to stats indicating that trolling is an equal opportunities profession, as is being a victim of online abuse. Again I have no idea why you are bothered to learn that there isn't one particular group victimising another particular group. Did you prefer the clear, simplistic narrative you had been fed and find the blurry narrative too complex?

I always try to resist jumping on the virtue-signalling bandwagon and attacking whoever has been declared public enemy by the righteous mob.

Before I wade in and attack innocent people, I like to say "hold on a minute, let's look at what is really going on here. Who is doing it? What are they actually doing? How many are doing? What percentage of the overall community are they?".

Sadly that makes me one of the out-group because I refuse to join in on the virtuous thuggery. Being in the out-group means being falsely painted as some kind of toxic entity and that eliminating said entity from the conversion will somehow make the falsehoods and crimes of the in-group right and acceptable.

I suggest next time those topics crop up, you carefully consider who is really doing the ranting and who is trying to use reason and a calm head.

Wicked Eric
1/6/2016 09:06:10 am

Good lord.

No one is threatened by your opinions and disagreeing with you doesn't mean we all persist in a left wing echo chamber.

It does however get tiresome to come here and find screed after screed of barely relevant pontificating. No one is under any obligation to engage with you on your myriad favourite topics.

In short. It's becoming a draaaaaag, man.

Penyrolewen
31/5/2016 10:01:28 pm

I'm not sure about dipping my toe into these murky waters but hey...let's try it!
Don't the BBC generate a lot of money by selling their flagship shows around the world? I assume that's why they kept the Top Gear brand going at all after Clarkson et al left. That money keeps the licence fee down presumably.
Other points: the BBC do lots of community stuff that no commercial channel ever would. If you don't like any of it (and I don't, really- I don't watch any TV at all) that's no reason to attempt to take it away from everyone else who does.
I understand your point about not being able to opt out but if enough people felt as you do, something would change. Not everyone thinks that market forces generate the best creative output and there must be (still) enough people who are happy enough with this model to keep it viable. That's democracy...majorities dictate what happens, at least in theory. Isn't that a bit like your market forces? Companies make what will sell, governments do whatever will keep them in power (whilst trying to move the Overton window so as to further their own interests of course).
As to your point about abuse being justified if you pay for it (some pretty specialised services in Soho offer this too)- I disagree. If people said "I pay for this show and it's awful because of x, y and z" - then I agree that's fine. To personally insult someone isn't. I've never liked Evans or Top Gear (before you jump, I don't choose to watch TV. I am exposed to it at other people's houses. My children and wife watch tv so I see bits but through choice have the box off.)
Nobody (apart from you) seems bothered by paying for the show, they are just being personally abusive because they don't like it. And that's not ok. Saying "oh, it's just the Internet, everyone does it, you have to put up with it" is wrong too. That's what people used to say about racism, homophobia, abuse of sportsmen etc.
Oh, and I can't believe there's not one BBC show, on tv or radio, that you haven't enjoyed. As I've said before, check out radio 4 comedy on iplayer- there's some great stuff there. You're paying for it after all.

Reply
Superbeast 37
1/6/2016 07:43:13 am

If the BBC are that popular and make a profit, they can be run via voluntary subscriptions. They don't even have to be privately owned aside from radio as we don't have the tech to make it sub only.

Nothing will change. If you are right, you won't notice a difference other than me shutting up! Like you say "no one is bothered paying for it". What are you afraid of then? You have nothing to fear.

If there is a significant reduction in their funding due to masses declining to pay/watch it (which I guarantee will happen), then (a) they can get more efficient and run on a lower budget and (b) it proves that a lot of people were being forced to pay for something they didn't deem worth it. That would make going sub-only the democratic choice and you would have been morally wrong for defending it.

If you stop paying you arent taking anything away from anyone. They are not entitled to a free meal. They have to pay for it themselves if they want it.

The BBC actually suffocates commercial free to air TV/radio so you would see more community content appearing there if the BBC wasn't damaging the market by producing some programmes below cost. Local services could run low budget community content if the Beeb weren't sucking the market dry.

In terms of content that doesn't warrant broadcast, they can move to amateur production on YouTube just as we gamers had to. You could set up a channel/patreon and earn a nice living producing said niche content if you believe people want it.

Evans didn't receive abuse.

Calling someone a "kn*b" because you don't like the TV show you were forced to pay for is not the same as homophobia and isn't abuse. Over dramatising it in that way just discredits any argument.

I personally have Sky and BT. Cost a fortune and I barely watch that. I mostly watch YT/Twitch.

I actually have to pay for Sky/BT for motorsports that used to be on the BBC. They took away the only content that I ever used them (or any TV) for but I'm still expected to pay the same fee whilst being forced to shell out more money to get that content back via private services. I'm paying £150 for absolutely nothing now. I'm subsidising the TV of a lot of people that earn more than me but having to pay for my own on top.

The tech exists to make the licence optional so if you want to fund something you admit you don't watch then that's an awesome bit of charity. Id give the money to cancer research instead but hey.

I think in this century there is actually more justification for funding broadband connections to every home than there is a TV service. That said, essentials like water and electricity are run privately so there is no excuse for state TV or Internet.

Rakladtor III The Terrible
31/5/2016 01:45:54 pm

If the relevant arguments put forth seem like long-winded rants to you, check out IGN for Kirby cosplayers calling each other poo poo heads!

Reply
Paul Jon Thrillin'
31/5/2016 01:57:44 pm

You do realise a lot of Digi2000 is pics of people with poo on their heads and lists of cosplayers, yeah?

Free-market-me-do!

Reply
Rakladtor III The Terrible
31/5/2016 03:23:55 pm

You do realise that serious debate and humour can exist in harmony on one site, yeah? And that anyone who doesn't like the serious debate aspect can just scroll down past it, yeah?

Paul Jon Thrillin'
31/5/2016 04:15:05 pm

Well, Mr the Terrible, I do realise, yes, and also I think that calling out said 'serious debate' should not warrant a 'go to ign with the idiots LOL' response. Not exactly serious debate, that. Or humour. Cool that you've found a Third Way, though.



Rakladtor III The Terrible
31/5/2016 04:38:00 pm

But Mr. Thrillin, I wasn't trying to make serious debate or trying to make humour, I was showing support to an individual who's arguments I deem to be an interesting read. And the same respect will be shown to all people on all sides of a properly conducted debate.

However lazy 'telegraph reader' jibes that jump in, devoid of anything constructive, do not earn this respect.

Also time to grasp that an article laughing at cosplayers is somewhat different from divs tearing into each other in IGN comments over fanboyism etc

Gibley
31/5/2016 02:19:43 pm

If those tedious walls of text read like relevant arguments to you, maybe you would also be more happy on the Telegraph letters page!

Reply
Rakladtor III The Terrible
31/5/2016 03:29:00 pm

seem more relevant to me than your weak-ass insults. I'm happy here but thx for caring

Penyrolewen
1/6/2016 11:03:25 am

Superbeast, I could answer all of your points but you know what? We're not going to change each other's minds, are we?
So in the interest of brevity- privately run utilities. Now they're just great aren't they? What's their brief again? Oh yes, profit. I personally think TV and radio run on the same principles is not as free and thus creative as that with public backing.
Hollywood and triple A games run on those lines and aren't famed for their artistic integrity. Yes, there are indie games and films - and there is already niche tv. I think the BBC provides something else - a third way, if you like.
But hey, let's agree to disagree. At least it sound like we have a liking for MotoGP in common. Enjoy the race this weekend (I'm not saying who I'm rooting for in case I upset you again)

Reply
Comrade Eric
31/5/2016 05:04:48 pm

We should nationalise the means of commenting on Digi2000.

Commenters of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

Reply
Superbeast 37
31/5/2016 05:21:26 pm

http://tinyurl.com/zrfexpw

Power to the people!

Reply
Spiney O'Sullivan
31/5/2016 11:41:19 pm

Too long have we, the postertariat, laboured under the yoke of Mr Biffo. Time to seize the means of production, our hands and keyboards!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ