Thursday, December 2, 2010

The douches of gaming

One of the first posts I made on this blog was about a holier-than-thou attitude a lot of people in this hobby seem to have. Granted, it's difficult to detect sarcasm and implicit humor over the internet, but some individuals are worse than others. Case in point: This Post. A few weeks ago I read that whole blog, from start to finish, and came away with the impression that the guy is a little intense, takes his gaming seriously, and quite possibly has a few differences in play style from casual gamers. Fine. He also comes off as somewhat of an elitist prick, but hey, whatever, it's his forum for discussing whatever he wants. However, I take serious issue with his characterization of James Maliszewski's (I certainly do love Polish names) post that sparked the response. James always comes off as someone who had a revelation and wants to share it with everyone else. I never detect any sort of condescension in his tone, even when he grossly stereotypes gamers into large homogeneous groups. Sure, I disagree with him sometimes, but he seems polite and affable. I could be wrong and he's actually a raging dickwad in Real Life, but as I only have his written word to judge him by, that's what I'm going to use.

That said, the Tao of D&D guy is just a flaming cocksucker. Not only does he attack James for literally one line in what I consider to be a fairly thoughtful analysis, he does so in a way that is impossible to take seriously. If you want to paint yourself as some sort of academician whose words hold gravitas of any sort, why a fucking ad hominem right off the bat? There's an instant tirade about James, and it takes several paragraphs before he even attempts to make any sort of counter-argument. The argument is flimsy anyway, and quite honestly just proves empirically what I've said all along: most gamers are fucking sociopathic assholes. Yeah, Mr. Tao, hide behind your computer screen and pseudo-anonymity. It's real easy to launch personal attacks at people, all while masquerading as some sort of intellectual paragon. Many years of grad school taught me a valuable lesson, that being the "smartest" people are the biggest morons and the ones who talk the loudest have the least to say.

Interestingly enough, this is not an ad hominem attack, by definition. I am directly attacking this assclown's character as a demonstration of my point that internet gamers are douches, so therefore it's a valid argument. I like Grognardia because it makes me think about stuff. I dislike The Tao of D&D because it tells me what to think. See the difference? What's funny is that James Raggi at LotFP is probably more intense and acerbic than this Tao fuck, yet I don't get the impression that he's an asshole. He just seems really interested in gaming; he's not trying to proselytize by personally attacking someone he disagrees with.

In closing, I'd like to say if you're not having fun playing a game, you're doing it wrong. Whatever constitutes "fun" and "game" is an exercise left to the reader.


  1. Really this is the best thing I've read today. I'm tired of all the douchery getting in the way of my game.

  2. How DARE he attack Saint James? Heavens, no!

    Alexis is opinionated, sure, but at least he has the balls to tell it the way he sees it. And he doesn't try to hide his vitriol behind some weak-assed rationalization the way you have.

    "Years in grad school...." Did you learn to be brave by playing D&D all those years, too?

  3. Look one doesn't have to worship James M. (I certainly don't) to recognize being someone being self-absorbed and off track when you see it.

    And yes it does remind a great deal of grad school too.

  4. More to the point, you're being the douchebag here. You've posted an ad hominem which you say isn't an ad hominem via a very weak argument (logician you ain't, mate), and this in response to a post that was attacking James M's ideas, rather than the person. Again, it may have been a forcefully stated argument, but he never called the Sainted One a "cocksucker." Funny, too, that you have to stoop to gay-bashing to make your point. Congratulations, you come out of this looking way shiny.

  5. The guy is passionate, and I can dig rants. I've crossed the line a few times venting on my blog (i've calmed it down a bit lately).

    I love Grognardia. It inspired my blog. But some people seem to be supreme butt kissers there. James say "achoo," and 50 people say "god bless you! James is a great guy though. I went off on him pretty hard once (tongue in cheek) and a few weeks later he friended me on Facebook! Hey, we all need to be taken down a peg. In my case it is usually helpful. It makes me count to ten in the future before posting angry stuff.

  6. On that last sentence I should probably add "most of the time..."

  7. Sycophants exist everywhere, that's true. I think I made it clear that I'm definitely not a Grognardia ass-kisser. I still find it funny that KenHR is so blinded by his own fawning behavior that he can't differentiate between ad hominem and a direct attack on the character of an individual. Perhaps a simple refresher course in logic would suit him well.

  8. I'm hardly a sycophant, but then I don't really feel I have to defend myself from the likes of you. Your homophobia already shows me that you're a disgusting person. Refusing to address me directly only reinforces that impression.

  9. In the realm of fair play, Alexis (of Tao) has a very fine article on weapon breakage today that is worth checking out.

  10. I never saw this post. Huh.

    I appreciate Ken defending me and all, but really, it's not needed.

    Brad, point out the flaw in the argument, please. It isn't enough to tell me that it's weak. Tell me where it is weak and I shall shore up that failing.

    Oh, and feel free to do it on the post, on my blog, where the weak argument was advanced. That would be most considerate.

    Regarding anonymity. I don't know who you are, either.

    Regarding Mr. Maliszewski. He felt no need to comment on it, though I'm sure it was pointed out to him. Why did you?