Monday, August 30, 2010

Abusing equal rights to up readership

Yea, this post is all about that Noisy rogue, who finally managed to make some noise.

Good for him, clearly the years in apprenticeship with the greedy goblin has payed off. It was not as if he had not tried before.

Throw out a line, hope someone with influence or readership grabs the bait and reel em in.
"Sorry wow.com, you are talking bullshit"
"Women are feminists and morons"
"social game, wow is not" (same topic as the greedy goblin uses).

Well finally he managed to find a hook: "That topic everyone is talking about is wrong".

And everyone fell for it. He went from 5 to 10 comments per post to over 100. That is a nice increase, especially considering the fact, that he did not really mean what he wrote.

Greedy Goblin has been doing this for years. Now the apprentice steps up.

The reason why I am so damn sure, that he did not mean that more 'female representation is a bad thing', is for two distinct facts: 1. when he got called out on it, he claims to have been misunderstood, and that people only latch on to one sentence and twist it to misrepresent him. Even I know a diversion, when I see one. When you do not have the arguments to support you, you attack the delivery.

2. His one stance is that since WoW is "high fantasy" it should not try and use modern day politics. That's fine, but if we use that arguement, then Adam should really be up on the fence on how under-represented women are. Because the only source material we have to use to define the gender issues in 'high fantasy', is Dungeons and Dragons. And it is stated over and over again in those books, that men and women are completely equal. They even have the same stats. Talk about fantasy!
In 'high fantasy' Men and women are equally smart, strong, fast and clever and so on and so forth. Yay fantasy land.
So that cannot be the 'high fantasy' Adam is reffering to. Maybe he is using the books of Tolkien as a reference point?
Well that does not make sense either, since Tolkien goes out of his way, in his books, to be a product of his time, when referring to gender roles.

So what are we left with? A blogger who wrote some gibberish in order to get noticed, and succeeded. So I guess it's grats on him.

Update: He now explains his views based on the fact that he is an anti-theist - in his opinion they are a belief system, that battles... ehm belief systems, at every chance they get. Because only with religious zealous can you combat... erhm... religion.

It is on purpose, that I've not linked to him, nor his masters blog.

10 comments:

  1. Two posts with 100+ comments but I suspect an overall drop in long-term readers. Also the value of attention is ... err ... relative, I guess, unless attention is your sole reason for keeping a blog in which case ... well ...

    The reason his posts got such attention I suspect was not just their stupidity and offensiveness but the fact they immediately became a rallying point for other bigots and morons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well imo, it seems to have worked for the goblin. It's the "any publicity is good publicity" approach. Or maybe even the Howard Stern school of thought, where people tune in to hear what he will say or do next, simply because they hate him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I tend to agree with Tam here - maybe it makes you feel real smug about the sudden increase of comments, but the backlash can be of a different nature. maybe you attracted a few readers but I question the ratio (or quality..) of those you gained over those you alienated just for the sake of trolling.

    I agree with you there - I actually believe too that said post, just like some other blogs associated with it, is pure trolling. the inet is full of it, "lets write up something highly controversial just for the sake of getting the heat". It's why I ignore such posts in general and try not to comment on them (or ever after) - because not commenting is the smart move and the least appreciated by them. I don't want to feed trolls with my comments, it's not worth my time or attention. that said I can understand if you can't stay away from it if you feel more personally involved - but the outcome will leave you unsatisfied no matter how well you form your counter-arguments. you can't win a discussion with a troll (what was it again, don't argue with idiots).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe the phrase is: Don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience."
    on your other point, (same as Tams) I guess we are back to one of my very old posts:

    "Why do people blog?"
    And Adam falls into the catagory of bloggers who blog for epeen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/Speaker:Greg_King
    Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That was the one, thanks. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't have such a bad overall opinion about Adam tbh. I think he's wrong in this debate and I've gone so sick and tired of the whole thing including some of his followers (he's got his own) that I've removed him from my blogroll for now. But he has written some good posts in the past, for instance about how the social side of the game has more or less disappeared in recent years. I don't think he has done this posting to get more attention. It's just that he sadly enough believes very strongly in what he writes and doesn't seem to take any impression whatsoever from any argument someone can bring up. It's like talking to a wall. So I stopped trying.
    But I don't think you're spot on about his motives.
    Sometimes you get a lot of comments just because a lot of people disagree with you. I got a pretty decent mob on me after posting about the GM which I thought - and still think - abused his power. Did I do it to get attention and comments? No. I did it because I was upset and thought that this needed to come out in the spotlight since I'd never ever heard of such behaviour before.

    Anyway - I'm trying to stay away the best I can from putting more gasolin on that fire. I just get angry by reading Adam so I've stopped.

    I might get back to him in the future at some point. Time will show. I wrote him a letter and said that he's free to poke me if he's got some topic up that he thinks might interest me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I read most of his posts as a guy who is trying to pick a fight, rather than someone who writes with an edge to prove a point.
    It's the difference between "troll racials are OP" and "syncaine"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again, like Larisa I thought better of him - hence my engagement in the debate at all. I assumed he was, err, misguided rather than actually a raging a bigot. And although I agree with you about not feeding trolls, I think sometimes one is morally obliged to speak out on some subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'I think sometimes one is morally obliged to speak out on some subjects.'

    oh absolutely. like I said, I am not always able or willing to stay away depending on what it is about or who writes it either. as long as you know that you're basically in a lose-lose situation; if the other person just wants to troll, he's fighting another battle than you are.

    but maybe you can still make a point to other readers / commenters, so it's not all lost. or you just need to say something because you owe it to yourself and that's perfectly fine.
    I just had to get myself a really thick skin in the past because if I invested so much energy everytime I felt morally obliged to, I'd probably have a nervous breakdown over the interwebz - so it's good if we can take turns sometimes =P

    ReplyDelete