Tuesday, January 16, 2018

The Truth Gap

"Veil of virtue hung to hide your method
While I smile and laugh and dance and sing your glory
While you lie, cheat and steal
You lie, cheat and steal
How can I tolerate you?
Our guilt, our blame, I've been far too sympathetic."

Tool - Intolerance

Women are making 79 cents on the dollar? Oh, those poor, oppressed 51% minority of women. Oh, those evil, cackling, domineering male oppressors. Oh, the humanity!

Oh the banality. How many times have we heard that bullshit spouted? Likely as many times as we should have re-read "How to Lie with Statistics" over the past few decades. Were it a philosophical statement, the gender wage gap would qualify as what Daniel Dennett termed a "deepity" - a statement with two meanings: one blatantly and indisputably true but trivial, the other nonsensical but sounding like an earthshaking revelation. Seeing as it's not a philosophical but a political statement, I'm just going to call it a lie.

The "wage gap" is really there and so long as you ignore everything else going on in society it does indeed sound like a stunning injustice, and feminists have constantly milked it to prop up their faery-tale boogeyman of an oppressive manocentric male-ocracy. It's not hard to get the results you want as long as you ignore the woman behind the curtain, ignore any relevant context or inherent bias in your favor, or to put it in the words of the authors of one meta-analysis of such studies: "Our results show that data restrictions have the biggest impact on the resulting gender wage gap." The closer you match men and women's life histories, the more the wage gap vanishes. Gradually over the past decade, given the endless such articles hinting at the intellectual dishonesty of womens' feigned martyrdom, feminists have been forced to grit their teeth and acknowledge other factors in personal economics which might account for this disparity aside from their all-purpose "men are evil" and their resulting song and dance warrant a good, hard eye-roll.

Consider other factors like seniority, hours worked, time taken off work, higher educational degrees and their relevance to the work environment and lo and behold, the pay earned by women for the same work begins to barrel vertiginously toward the earnings of their male slavedrivers. Depending on the year and country of the study, even feminist-biased studies seem to yield (in the small print) only a 3-6% unexplained pay disparity between men and women. Note that "unexplained" to feminists immediately translates as EVIL PATRIARCHY!!! More objective analyses tend to conclude the whole precept is so flimsy as to seem "not even wrong" in Pauli's famous words. Then they ignore their own low single-digit results and get on national television to screech and wail about their self-serving 20% pay gap instead. Because, you see, even if men are killing themselves like idiots to maintain their image as worthy providers in their wives' eyes and women are content to live better with less direct pay, that's still oppression of women... somehow. 'Cuz ovaries.

Aside from a bare-faced preachers' defense of their own pulpit on feminists' part, this is, to me in my poor primitive male mind, one of the most stunning examples of "burying the lead" as journalists put it. A 500% margin of error? Persisting through decade after decade? That's your front-page headline. It may be that the remaining percentage, your supposed truth, can also be explained rationally instead of appealing to fanatical anti-male chauvinism, or maybe there really is still some old boys' club lurking in boardrooms. Worry about that on page 12. But! - before we get to that mysterious remaining fifth of the supposed wage gap, tell me instead about the first four-fifths. Tell me why, for the entirety of my life, you have shamelessly lied to me about 4/5 of the problem. Tell me why you've browbeaten men and fabricated this entire guilt narrative to force men to accept unfair hiring and workplace practices to correct your imaginary injustice. Write a ten-page article detailing what exactly entitles you, you fucking do-nothing, profiteering, softheaded, antiscientific "women's studies" wastes of space, tell me what the fuck you think entitles you to foment inequity, panic and bigotry by lying to the entire world.

Better yet, let's try to think about what instinctive pro-female bias makes us so susceptible to such lies. What makes us so paranoid about mistreatment of women that we're willing to uncritically buy into feminist propaganda, whether it be truth or lie, at face value? Talk about why this 80% lie has persisted for over two generations at the very least. Let's analyze why the leader of the free world, Barrack "hope and change" Obama and Hillary "vote for my ovaries" Clinton have gotten up on the international stage to endlessly repeat this blatant lie (which not even its most ardent proponents can sustain anymore) as if were undying gospel. No-one is innocent.

Let's talk about your 80% truth gap.

Let's talk about the men over the past decades who've likely been driven out of education, out of white-collar work, to scrabble for manual labor and finally to the streets, into the gutter and into the grave because of the institutional favoritism such lies engender. Let's talk about your monstrous entitlement in playing slavedriver to those individuals who were born the politically incorrect sex. I will no longer tolerate you even if I must go down beside you.

Only after that, if you still want to talk about removing those last few percentage points of disparity, then remove women's access to men's labor and earnings. Eliminate the main reason why men have to try harder, have to scramble for every cent. Eliminate our instinctive mentality of male providers and female ability to fall back on said providence. Eliminate marriage, and gold-digging and alimony and child support for unwanted children and the duty of the man as handy around the house. Instead of indoctrinating men from the cradle in some primordial guilt and debt toward women, make it a part of every boy's upbringing to learn the tools of feminine manipulation, beware and resist them in order to remain free of female control.

When women can no longer bleed men at their leisure, you'll start seeing real equality. Eliminate women's entitlement and men's willingness to sacrifice themselves. Of course, such an alien state of being would lie so wholly outside the definition of humanity as to render its very pursuit moot. As long as humans are human, men will strive to make themselves more valuable wage slaves in order to lavish the fruits of their labor upon women.

Sunday, January 14, 2018


"A clash of worlds is at hand
I am the first, I am the last
I am the knowing, I am the lost
I am the honored, I am the scorned

Born to sleepers the unnatural seems natural
It is slow death waking from this world
When the truth is veiled"

Faith and the Muse - Battle Hymn

My post a couple of months ago on ubergamer attrition got me thinking. Whatever happened to Real-Time-Strategy / First-Person-Shooter hybrid games?

Back in eighth grade, while thoroughly bewitched by the polygonal glory of Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries, I came up with this, like, dude, like, totes awesomesauce idea. You ready for this? Check it:
What if instead of individual missions you could link all those mission maps into one giant persistent warzone so that factions could gain or lose terrain. You could even put the whole thing on teh internets like a championship or something. And then you could have some players deciding strategies and allocating resources while others went toe to toe in their war machines.
Eh? Eh? Did I not tell you how a-may-zing this idea was?

Uprising was an impulse purchase snatched off the shelf a year later at Egghead Computers before they numbered among the first of Amazon's many casualties. Though single-player and primarily a twitch-based FPS, Uprising provided a surprising amount of resource management, situational awareness and a necessity to plan ahead. Zipping around in my hovertank teleporting reinforcements to myself closed in on my ideal mech-littered virtual warscape. It was the first FPS/RTS hybrid game I'd tried, whetting my appetite for Battlezone 2 a year after that.

That game was unfairly panned in its time and never achieved the lasting recognition it should have, due in part to a fanatical backlash from BZ1 players who apparently didn't like the larger-scale, more varied gameplay. For all its bugs and cheesy Starship Troopers aesthetic, BZ2 managed to integrate a full RTS economy with FPS vehicle combat and even an infantry mode for spec ops (little used but highly intriguing.) It provided the full range of units seen in any RTS from the preceding years like Command and Conquer: Red Alert or Warcraft 2, from light harasser units to heavy tanks, battlemechs, powerful but vulnerable artillery, air units including air transports for invasions, repair units, guard towers, you name it. It even had alternate modes/loadouts for various units, a feature rarely attempted at that time by even the individual genres it melded.
Icing that cake, Battlezone 2 managed to convey a dramatic sense of scale, thanks largely to its aforementioned option of hopping out of your current vehicle to walk around as a tiny, vulnerable ape among all the lumbering war machinery. In order to access your top-down commander mode you would do just that: park your vehicle next to a command bunker and walk inside.

When the first workable online team RTS / FPS hybrids came out (Natural Selection and Savage) they retained this aesthetic principle of placing first-person players as lowly grunts on an RTS map.
Example map from Natural Selection 2, still played by a few people on Steam
The resource nodes are what matter. You don't. Get out there and give your life(-ves) for the cause, maggot!

For a little while until about 2007-2008, RTS/FPS hybrids were going strong, or at least steady. Savage 2 came out even sleeker than the original and long before NS2 made it onto Steam, Half-Life 2 modders had started churning out ambitious and creative RTS-flavored mods like Empires or Insects Infestation (which never quite allowed you to play as a literal maggot, unfortunately.)

If you think this is sounding like nostalgic pining for games of yore... in part it is. I will concede, however, that none of these examples were in themselves a desirable end-product. They were only ever a limited compromise with old technology. They were too isolated and repetitive in the case of single-player titles, too short-lived and repetitive in the case of multiplayer, and too limited in size in both cases. From 1997 onwards, more and more of these hybrid games' clientelle instead flocked to MMOs, returning only briefly every time when, invariably, the latest MMO failed to deliver an entire universe of layered, constantly progressing real-time combat and strategy. Savage 2 even awarded a "biggest MMORPG fan" title at the end of each match to the player who'd farmed the most NPCs... in a PvP game. Then, as Counterstrike and World of Warcraft brought internet gaming to the rabble, the flood of mass-market cretins drowned out, scattered and starved out the expectations of the much smaller, more discerning nerdy audience. It is, however, inevitable that fans of real-time games should look to MMOs as the next logical step up.

A single interconnected world of combat at the individual or squad or army level, with territory being gained or lost by player action. Resource acquisition and management and distribution, construction, destruction on every scale. All the layered conflict from the personal to the orbital which RTS/FPS hybrid games promised, is best embodied in a persistent virtual world. To achieve that status, however, MMOs would need to stop feeding their troglodytic customers' unearned sense of self-worth. Stop centering the action on individual players. It's the map that matters. Look at the NS2 map above again and compare it to that of MMOs. Does it look more... circular? Fully interconnected? That's how an MMO's map should look.

No low-level zones to be abandoned in favor of leveling sideways to the next zone. No grinding Lower Wasteflow by yourself until you get the gear to grind through Upper Wasteflow by yourself. No isolated backwaters littered with isolated players grinding isolated, motionless NPCs for no purpose but stuffing their own personal loot bags. An MMO's map should embody a central goal (whether competitive or cooperative) into which the actions of a thousand, ten, a hundred thousand players feed directly or indirectly. Such games should not consist of PvP arenas and PvE instances and crafting minigames all irrelevant to each other. It should be understood that MMOs, by nature of their "massiveness" should be hybrids, a convergence of other genres, not clusters of disparate minigames. If they fail to bring together individual decision and grand strategy (as all WoW-clones have failed) then there's nothing "massive" about them.

Friday, January 12, 2018

City of Defendors?

Funny that no matter Woody Harrelson's evident talent and his long and very busy career, his lantern jaw doomed him early on to be cast as a redneck, petty thug or other flavor of retard... like a dumb jock superhero. Defendor was just a logical expansion on his general career.

Incidentally, a long time ago, shortly before City of Heroes went under, I complained about its gradual loss of focus on clean heroics:
"It was greatly damaged by later attempts at moral ambiguity, mystery or real drama. There's simply not enough wiggle-room in the very concept of co-op PvE games to allow for that. You team up and beat on some bad guys. Good, clean fun. Morally simplistic as it is, that's golden-age superheroism, and CoH did it well enough at its start."

I seem to be supported in this general view of superheroism by the trend for superhero movies to flop monumentally when attempting to render their protagonists too morally ambiguous.

That background of moral simplicity defined pulp science fiction as well as comics back in the first half of the 20th century, but where SF stagnated and rotted in its "young adult" phase of space operas and planetary romances, comic books flourished, thanks largely to superheroes. Superheroes as avatars of tribal ideals are not expected to question or challenge the status quo the way a SciFi inventor might be. There's no "what if" involved in Superman punching things. He just punches things. Regardless of how admirably Alan Moore's Watchmen dissected the precepts of superheroism, too much of that level of introspection would kill a genre defined by action. Dark he may be, but even Batman's a knight. "Hard" SF revolutionized its industry. Hard superheroes aren't tolerated very long. It's a facile medium and genre.

So don't act shocked that Peter Stebbings and Woody Harrelson portrayed one of the most believable superheroes in movie history... as a retard. Admit it's a retarded concept to begin with. Getting into a superhero story means sending most of your frontal lobe on holiday, not asking how or why anything happens, imagining the character with whom you identify's blessed with perfect intentions and discernment to set upon the best course of action. You can't squeeze that much certainty into any brain cluttered by more than 100 IQ points. Intellect questions itself. Knights in more or less shining armor don't. Suspension of disbelief doesn't begin to cover it. As painful as it is to watch Defendor rehearse his catchphrases in the mirror and sputter them ineptly at incredulous evil-doers, it's quite in keeping with addressing passers-by as "citizen" and spouting lines like "I am the night" or "it's clobberin' time" with utter innocence. Superheroics excuse not only property damage, but overacting. There's an honest appeal in that.

Following City of Heroes' deserved shutdown a few years ago, quite a lot of its playerbase declared their intent to keep the dream alive. The central philosophy of such a project would have to be, as I previously remarked, giving players the creative freedom to define themselves as comic book characters, and this must include the right to dress and act like idiots. While the individual creations of Marvel or DC or whatever may or may not be dignified, a game universe meant only to feed players' own creativity can't take itself too seriously. Its aesthetics must retain a certain... goofiness, a light touch. Campy, farcical, garish, it must allow customers to build on the main appeal of superheroes over other genres. Forget all the big famous caped crusaders. Your customers aren't them. They're wannabes. They're Defendors, and a true spiritual successor to City of Heroes must provide the sort of atmosphere in which Defendor would play out his quest to bring Captain Industry to justice.

A decentralized superhero universe should be seen through Defendor-tinted glasses.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Springtime for Werwolfe

Though I liked dabbling in Vampire: The Masquerade via its cRPG representation Bloodlines (and even Redemption for all its faults) I've always felt a very significant lack in being unable to play as V:tM's most intriguing clan. It makes me unhappy, unhappy, so very very very very very unhappy. For... you see, I have a secret desire hiding deep in my soul. It sets my heart afire to see me in this rooooooooole-
( -playing game)

I wanna be a Tzimisce
With a scoff to Masquerades
I wanna be a Tzimisce
Lunch on humies every way

I wanna be a Tzimisce
Sport a top rank under Caine
Cause the Camarilla pain
And torpor 'til half past two
Fleshcraft you, you, you - bone you.

I wanna be a Tzimisce
Wear some topsoil when I nap
I wanna be a Tzimisce
See my name vicissitudized
I wanna be a Tzimisce
Every pocket stuffed choice cuts
I wanna be a Tzimisce
On my crafted sentient couch

I wanna dine on the duchess with the duke
I wanna be a Tzimisce
Guzzle vitae 'til I puke
Show the world just what I've got
I'm gonna put on shows that will en-thrall 'em
Read my lips: Gehenna's comin'!


Don't look at me like that you philistines. My talent's wasted on you. Wasted!

Ghouls want him; Gangrels wanna be him

Look, I get it, given Bloodlines' basic plot and atmosphere (not to mention technological and budget limitations) no non-Masquerade playstyles could really have been implemented. Even less so in the even more linear Redemption with its whiny bloodsucker romance plot. Still, if I were to play another V:tM-themed computer game, it's the Tzimisce I'd want to try on for size. Two reasons:

1) Villains get the best lines. "The fiends from the Carpathians" in pursuit of their psychopathic obsessions seem like they'd offer the greatest amount of individualism in a game universe otherwise wrapped much too tightly around codependence and clan politics/intrigue for my Gangrel tastes. Unlike the Gangrel, however, the Tzimisce's basic mad scientist aesthetic appears to center more on creativity and intellect. Just my victims and me and my monsters make many. What more family does a Cainite need?

2) Vicissitude with its flesh and bone-crafting seems the most interesting of all the disciplines I've encountered so far as a vampiric dilettante. So much... potential. Aside from the Ed Gein inspired fleshy furniture (always fun) imagine combining Spore-like creature modeling with a modern top-notch physics engine allowing you to alter your creations' movements and abilities by re-sculpting them.

A Tzimisce-themed game would likely center not on the usual RPG questing progression, but on a Dungeon Keeper sort of base-building. Spend most of your time puttering around your suppurating sepulcher and defending it from incursions, with occasional forays into the city beyond for more victims and supplies. Imagine watching your lair slowly spread to gobble up some quaint little neighbourhood, house by house.

Come on, I'm pretty sure the technology's advanced enough now to make a game like this happen. Just need some intrepid developers willing to snub Mrs. Grundy and let us play the villain. If you've got it, flaunt it!

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Find Nothing (or Everything) Pleasant

"In natural appetites few people are in error, and only in one direction, toward excess. Eating indiscriminately or drinking until we are too full is exceeding the quantity that accords with nature; for [the object of] natural appetites is the filling of a lack.
People who are deficient in pleasures and enjoy them less than is right are not found very much. For that sort of insensibility is not human; indeed, even the other animals discriminate among foods, enjoying some but not others. If someone finds nothing pleasant, or preferable to anything else, he is far from being human. The reason he has no name is that he is not found much."

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 3, Chapter 11, Terence Irwin translation

That last sentence stands out as amazing in itself, especially if you've read some of Plato's Socratic dialogues and can recognize in Aristotle the same burning need to define terminology. For the better part of a century, Athens' immortally famous intelligentsia had seemingly busied itself with the business of naming, of lending clarity to the amalgam of half-baked memes born of mindless, oversocial simian grunting over the previous millennia. Yet Aristotle had no names for those deficient in the two major natural appetites for feed an' fuckin'*. Give or take twenty-three centuries later, it took the Victorians to describe Anorexia and Kinsey's mighty Privates Brigade** to define Asexuality.

If you've never made a habit of leafing through random ancient writings, do. It can give you a sense not only for how much history repeats itself (and it does, oh my sweet plebes, it does) but also how the technologically developed world in the year 2340 After Aristotle or 402 After Shakespeare has bounded so far past the human ape's understanding. We have the words for that now, thanks to industrial farming and antibiotics and vaccines and centuries of other scientific progress past the state of superstitious primitives looking to the sky for salvation and wondering where their next half-a-meal will come from. Aristotle, one of the very few to have ever advanced intellectual progress, could not have imagined a world in which gluttony and obesity have almost become the norm, in which paradoxically the question of people deliberately starving themselves for no logical reason has also become a recurrent hot-button issue.

Hammurabi's laws were revolutionary... 3800 years ago. Plato was brilliant when everyone else thought the sun rode around in a chariot. Jesus was a comparatively well-meaning sun-baked fruitcake among trigger-happy stoning mobs and the Iroquois League made a nice break from scalping each other. There are no "ancient Chinese secrets" except the exasperating question of why everyone keeps salivating at that phrase, of why yuppies with $100,000 university educations stuff themselves with Ginseng and stick needles in their cha-cha-chakras and imagine Tai Chi's anything but a damned satisfying morning stretch. The wise and noble ancients will not save you from your own stupidity.

The wise and noble ancients were a bunch of lice-ridden vagrants torturing each other to death. They were animals - to a lesser extent than their own wise and noble stone-age ancestors, sure, and we to a still lesser. Aristotle was describing natural states, and already we can see hypocrisy creeping into that attitude, coming from an overgrown monkey dressed in sheep's clothing and keeping baked clay jugs of olives around his artificial cave. Ask an orangutan to make you some beeswax candles if you think even the bronze age was at all natural. All the more infuriating to hear you filthy brainless trash in your petroleum polymer microfiber hoodies bragging into your smartphones about your "natural" lifestyles.

To Aristotle, the departure from natural appetites would have seemed inhuman, and he was brilliant and he was more right than he likely even imagined. The more we think, the more we advance, the less we resemble the implacably instinct-driven savages who constituted a hundred thousand years of humanity before us. Freedom is unnatural. The freedom to manage your own body, to choose whether or not and how to mate, to forego the struggle for tribal status, to believe something other than what your closest fellows believe and act accordingly, are more alien to the animal kingdom, more remote than the stars themselves. Reason is unnatural. Personal liberty, ethics, imagination, exploration... hurray for the unnatural!

A pity he never met Darwin. Deprived of rational evolutionary explanations for human impulses, Aristotle's justifications for human actions unavoidably but fatally conflate the dog with the tail attempting to wag said dog. We are in a much better position now to judge how much our animal bodies abuse us as minds, how our instincts enslave us and enable others to enslave us by manipulating our hormonal reactions. And if Aristotle could hardly understand a world of Big Macs and pizza delivery, he certainly could not understand a world of routine STD screening, The Pill and paternity testing.

The nuclear family unit, the world of women and children first and arranged weddings and a man's gotta do and a green-eyed monster under every marriage bed is every bit as much a figment of the "natural" limitations within that primitive world of subsistence farming. Libertinism is a luxury of civilized society, as the comfortable Greek and Roman upper classes were certainly in the course of discovering. Legally enforced monogamy should be considered every bit as shameful a medievalism as rickets and goiters and the slavemaster's whip. As galling as it is to keep hearing the bible-thumping right-wingers keep droning on about the natural order of things, it's outright infuriating to hear LGBTQQue-walla-walla-cuckoos adopting the same inane desperation to declare their own sexual preferences just as natural.

Gay marriage? Fuck it. With a strap-on. Genderless pronouns? Why would anyone give a shit? Be the dude that looks like a lady. Be the lady that looks like an extraterrestrial. Just stop trying to legitimize yourself by branding yourself. Be unnatural. Be a wer-wolfe. Be that for which Aristotle had no name or for which there is now no name, which needs no name, no check-box on the forms, no rubber stamp of social approval. Be inhuman. Be posthuman, if you dare.

* Errr, my phrasing, not Aristotle's or Irwin's
** Not an official title, military or otherwise.