ROSS'S GAME DUNGEON: DEUS EX

[JackBNimble]

Loved the video, clicked for Ross talking about a great game, got a bonus helping of ross as a Vox.com contributor. Not kidding, loved it.

 

I'd be all for political/economical posts/podcasts you might want to make in the future. Something separated from video production so there's not as much of a barrier to create? In the same vein but even easier, toss out some website/book recommendations.

 

Examples

911 - read The Looming Tower.

Iraq Occupation - read Imperial Life in the Emerald City

Is the world really going to shit - read The Better Angels of our Nature

[daisekihan]

 

While I can see lack of sources as a concern, I don't really agree that he should watch his step to such an extend. Ross said it himself, he is the equivalent of a mad street preacher, these are the things that make the show great, he gets to talk about unusual topics about the games. I also have serious doubts that analysis of specifically game related politics will draw a noticeable hostile crowd.

Also I admit that not everyone can do this, but honestly I think it's as simple as ignoring the parts of a fanbase you dislike if they become disagreeable.

Additionally things like /pol/ and fox have little overlap with people against income injustice and the military industrial complex, they're usually staunch defenders

 

The thing is, I don't see Ross as a mad street preacher, I actually think of him as one of the most reasonable, even-handed people on the internet.

 

But if you think that people against "income injustice" aren't on /pol/, you're mistaken--rather, their whole worldview is backed by the idea that rich liberal elites control the political system and use it to disenfranchise them while benefiting minorities, and who want to erode our national character in favor of a globalized citizenship.

[daisekihan]

Loved the video, clicked for Ross talking about a great game, got a bonus helping of ross as a Vox.com contributor. Not kidding, loved it.

 

Actually, Vox recently an article (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study) critical of the study Ross used as crux of his argument about plutocracy.

[Heliocentrical]

The thing is, I don't see Ross as a mad street preacher, I actually think of him as one of the most reasonable, even-handed people on the internet.

Um no, Ross is literally a mad street preacher. If you haven't watched Ross's content that isn't just his comedy. If you really think that you're far too invested in him as an authority figure. It's really unhealthy to make idols out of the people you watch on Youtube.

[JackBNimble]

Loved the video, clicked for Ross talking about a great game, got a bonus helping of ross as a Vox.com contributor. Not kidding, loved it.

 

Actually, Vox recently an article (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study) critical of the study Ross used as crux of his argument about plutocracy.

 

 

It's good that Vox provides criticism of the paper, but it's not like Ross, Ezra Klein, or anyone else built up the basic idea of america having oligarchical characteristics just from that one paper, here's another Vox article on the same theme http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5581272/doom-loop-oligarchy

 

It's cool that the criticism of the paper is getting press and thanks for linking to it, but I don't think Ross is overreaching to suggest things like "the rich pay for lobbying that influences our laws". At the risk of coping out with "the truth is in the middle" it shouldn't be controversial to say that the U.S.A. is a democratic country that also struggles with the influence of the rich, and I'd go a step further and suggest the rich are getting richer while the rest get poorer.

 

It's not the end of the world, but Capitalism is amoral. Not evil, I want to stress, but amoral.

[Presence]

Finding exploits is a common thing in gaming; surely all gamers are aware of the type who likes to spend twenty hours figuring out how to kill the end boss in one hit with a joke weapon.

 

I've been thinking about how this has parallels with real world rules systems. Capitalism, I think, weeds out companies that can't find exploits. Starvation and civil war weed out societies that can't close enough of them.

[NightNord]

Warning: more politics under the spoiler!

 

 

It's also good to point out that "the best government system in the world" - democracy or more precisely - indirect democracy - simply can't work. Did you noticed how much time and effort presidential candidates (of all countries) spend on saying how bad the other guy is, instead of focusing on how good he is? And how politicians more and more sound like religious missionaries, spending the "word of truth" without putting much argument into it? Modern democraties spend so many time discussing voting institutions and rules that people forget that the real idea of voting is to have a vote. To get an influence over your government politics!

 

And what if neither of candidates match your interests? You are screwed. And rich people - they not only can influence public opinion, they may sponsor politicians they need and want into being candidates. You can't. They can. And then they don't even need to pay this guy money - it has the "right" views. It will do the right thing by himself. It's perfect!

 

Add to this an idea that the most important thing today all candidates are talking about is personal wealth. Increasing the level of life. And what is the level of life - an ability to buy a car, a house and some food each day. That's the most important things in the world! People who has their values so low are easy to control. That's why education is on it's fall all over the world - uneducated people don't care about wars and homeless people. Their dream is fulfilled - a house, a car and some food!

 

As someone born in USSR and now living in Russia I totally agree with the Chinese guy from the video. Autocracy is freaking so much better. At least it doesn't trying to dumb you down - autocracy has military power to back up it's rule, it doesn't need fancy tricks and voting system. And it actually benefits from people being smart and well (but under control) and they can do much better. It just takes away some of your freedom, but who cares about freedom of being nothing.

 

 

But anyway, great work as always Ross. With each video you talk about your views my respect to you grows even further. Even if I don't agree with you on everything, you always have a damn good point.

 

I'll be waiting the next video with anticipation.

 

P.S. Oh, yes, I totally forgot. You say Illuminati part isn't true? Well, maybe it's just yet? Did you seen the video Elon Musk (a well-known media person with an intellectual tag) essentially rebranding the superhuman theory? That's definitely not sound well for the future. And very much Deus Ex

[Sucellus]

Good video, must say I enjoyed this one a lot, perhaps just a little bit too much of conspirancy stuff for my taste. Deus Ex for is one of those games that I tried two times to get into, but I just didn't enjoy playing it. Probably just not my kind of genre.

[daisekihan]

 

It's cool that the criticism of the paper is getting press and thanks for linking to it, but I don't think Ross is overreaching to suggest things like "the rich pay for lobbying that influences our laws". At the risk of coping out with "the truth is in the middle" it shouldn't be controversial to say that the U.S.A. is a democratic country that also struggles with the influence of the rich, and I'd go a step further and suggest the rich are getting richer while the rest get poorer.

 

It's not the end of the world, but Capitalism is amoral. Not evil, I want to stress, but amoral.

 

I pretty much agree with what your saying, but it seemed to me that Ross was going much further than this and saying "The rich pay for lobbying that completely dictates all of our laws and policies", which is similar to what the paper was saying and as I've said goes to far.

[daisekihan]

 

As someone born in USSR and now living in Russia I totally agree with the Chinese guy from the video. Autocracy is freaking so much better. At least it doesn't trying to dumb you down - autocracy has military power to back up it's rule, it doesn't need fancy tricks and voting system. And it actually benefits from people being smart and well (but under control) and they can do much better. It just takes away some of your freedom, but who cares about freedom of being nothing.

 

 

You are a really scary person. Please don't ever run for office.

[TheTron852]

daisekihan, you do realize that you can put multiple answers, quotes included, in a single post? It's not really necessary to make multiple posts for separate answers :\

[ScumCoder]

You are a really scary person. Please don't ever run for office.

What exactly was so 'scary' in his post? There is nothing whatsoever inherently bad in autocracy, it is a perfectly normal system which emerges naturally in big heterogeneous countries - otherwise they are torn apart by infighting (see e.g. ancient Rome starting from Caesar, Russia starting from Peter I etc). If you actually believe that Stalin/Kim Jong-il/ were man eating monsters loathed by their own people then you've watched too much American propaganda.

[Heliocentrical]

We should all just become Anarchists. The best kind of government is no government at all.

[JackBNimble]

You are a really scary person. Please don't ever run for office.

What exactly was so 'scary' in his post? There is nothing whatsoever inherently bad in autocracy, it is a perfectly normal system which emerges naturally in big heterogeneous countries - otherwise they are torn apart by infighting (see e.g. ancient Rome starting from Caesar, Russia starting from Peter I etc). If you actually believe that Stalin/Kim Jong-il/ were man eating monsters loathed by their own people then you've watched too much American propaganda.

 

I think I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in...I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip up, sir.

 

It was such a weird, frustrating moment for me when, as someone from the U.S., the Chinese bar tender was talking circles around me, telling me China was the new "land of the free". I was about 16 or something so I could barely follow the rhetoric both sides used, but looking back at their argument it's hard for me not to feel the bartender won. In Deus Ex UNATCO, before you realize what they're really involved with/controlled by, are "super police" and as a white kid growing up in the U.S.A. I accepted that super police would be good by default. The bartender argument was interesting because it planted doubt that UNATCO, as part of the enforcement of the government the bartender was condemning, was an essentially noble organization tainted or corrupted.

 

On another note, I noticed Ross said he's going to be reviewing the Deus Ex series. So maybe we'll be getting Human Revolution soon. I know some of my friends are replaying it on Steam in anticipation of the 3rd one.

 

Oh god wait does he mean he's reviewing invisible war? I literally forgot it existed oh nooooo.

[JackBNimble]

edit - double post, my bad

Edited August 23, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Hyttenhoof]

What ruling people prefer is really mostly up to the individual. Personally I'd sacrifice a whole ton of safety and stability for the tiniest sliver of agency, so an autocracy seems like a terrible idea to me, even if we pretend (and it is very much pretend) that it generally yielded better results.

The republic was a lot more stable than the roman empire.

[Tangent]

So the amount that candidates are funded is not the direct cause of their election, but due to many other factors that start a cycle of funding. Funding and election certainly correlate, but the election is also largely due to other factors. The way Ross said it, it seemed that he was saying it was causal. He might not've meant it that way, but since this fact was a part of an aside, it might've been oversimplified for time.

 

While I've not looked up sources for Ross's claim that ~91% (10/11 times) of successful political candidates were the most well-funded, even if it is true it is not necessarily telling of the election process's corruption, or that election results are affected "by the number of ads Joe Voter sees" alone. A candidate can win over another for a number of reasons, and funding levels will usually fluctuate as the candidate's appeal rises or falls. I'm sure those that donate and fund these political hopefuls want a return on their investment and won't burn more money on the fallacious premise that money is 91% of what wins elections. There will be a point where one candidate becomes more popular than another due to a gaff, scandal, a position becoming more clear, a cleansweep debate, etc. and more or less funding will surely follow that.

 

I'm sure there could be a massive debate over which factors correlate with actual election the most, and money would be way up there, but money is used to pay for those other factors, so....

[SummersetBanjo]

I saw this video and was reminded of your DLC discussion.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoFe8hRy42o

[patlefort]

So the amount that candidates are funded is not the direct cause of their election, but due to many other factors that start a cycle of funding. Funding and election certainly correlate, but the election is also largely due to other factors. The way Ross said it, it seemed that he was saying it was causal. He might not've meant it that way, but since this fact was a part of an aside, it might've been oversimplified for time.

 

While I've not looked up sources for Ross's claim that ~91% (10/11 times) of successful political candidates were the most well-funded, even if it is true it is not necessarily telling of the election process's corruption, or that election results are affected "by the number of ads Joe Voter sees" alone. A candidate can win over another for a number of reasons, and funding levels will usually fluctuate as the candidate's appeal rises or falls. I'm sure those that donate and fund these political hopefuls want a return on their investment and won't burn more money on the fallacious premise that money is 91% of what wins elections. There will be a point where one candidate becomes more popular than another due to a gaff, scandal, a position becoming more clear, a cleansweep debate, etc. and more or less funding will surely follow that.

 

I'm sure there could be a massive debate over which factors correlate with actual election the most, and money would be way up there, but money is used to pay for those other factors, so....

 

91% is not telling? Do you even understand how elections work? Hillary is one of the most disliked candidate ever and yet she's the nominee, you don't think money and related propaganda is related? It seems to me that nothing will change your mind at this point.

[sullygass95]

Ok, so I'm a little late to the party having just got back from vacation, but I feel as a DC lobbyist or lobbyist in training I have some insight into the political aspects of this game and RGD.

 

First, in regards to what you said about money controlling the outcomes of elections, that's often true, but you have to consider that the person with the most resources is often the person with the most compelling case for the job. People, corporations, and yes interest groups will contribute to that person if they seem the most qualified, but still that doesn't guarantee them to win. Ross, you come dangerously close to telling people their votes don't matter in this episode and in a democracy that's rarely the case. It's like telling someone they can dump their garbage in their town's lake because how much harm can a few bags of trash do to an entire lake, but they're never the only person doing that and it all adds up. To put this in perspective, currently this video has over 90,000 views: the Democratic Primaries of Iowa, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota, Connecticut, Delaware, and Kentucky were all decided by less than half that number of votes and they ALL broke Clinton's way.

 

Also, getting back to money deciding elections, going over to the Republican's side, their primary was won by one of the worst financed candidates, Donald Trump, who despite his background ran on a very populist, anti-business platform, for a Republican anyway. Meanwhile Jeb Bush, one of the best financed candidates with numerous corporate and special interest ties, was crushed in the elections.

 

Now, in regards to your diagram of politicians, corporations, and lobbyists, which we call the Iron Triangle, is a gross over simplification of what we do. Although I represent one of the Labor Unions and not an interest group with corporate ties, I will point out that what I spend most my time doing is meeting with representatives, or more often their staff, and INFORMING them about bills and legislation that pertain to labor and the economy in general. Politicians can never be an expert on everything or even most issues, so they rely on us to educate them. My group doesn't give money to every representative or candidate we work with, and when we do they're typically $5,000 contributions, which is a drop in the bucket for most politicians on the federal level, and on the state level they get far less attention from the media and far less money from corporations.

 

With that said, I still loved this Game Dungeon, politics and all, and can't wait for the next one!

Edited August 23, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)