२० ऑगस्ट, २०१६
"NPR Deletes Comments, Says Commenters Are Too Old And Male."
That is about the angle I was thinking of taking if I could ever slog through NPR's lengthy explanation. I was, essentially, bored out of critiquing NPR.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
At a certain point, why do we men tolerate all of this bullshit?
You want to ban comments because they aren't racially diverse enough? Well, NPR, no black people listen to you. Nobody under the age of 90 listens to you. And the women who listen to you are too busy knitting and getting old to type comments.
It'd be easier for all involved to just remove all federal funding, since you are not treating groups equally here. If the comments had too many women or too many minorities, they'd still be up.
The Left has a deep hatred of men and I, for one, cannot fathom why any man is on their side. They HATE you.
NPR commenters don’t reflect the demographics of the site’s readers, since they appear more likely to be older men
Are the demographics of the sites 'readers' posted somewhere? An alternative theory is the commenters completely reflect the demographics of the sites readers and NPR is upset by it- just like Lena Dunham's Girls.
Corollary: Society doesn't value certain older men, giving them free time to comment on NPR.
I'm guessing that old and male means disputative.
That’s interesting. As a long time NPR listener and reader and commenter, the slow shift from commenters who were obviously NPR listeners to majority non-NPR listeners and more or less haters of NPR has been undeniable to anyone who could read. It’s too bad. I enjoyed the comments section especially when there were actual NPR listeners commenting.
Your voice and opinion are highly valued unless you are a male.
Your voice and opinion are highly valued especially if you actually listened to NPR. But most did not.
I guess that could apply to Althouse's blog too.
(Could not resist.)
HT asserted: "Your voice and opinion are highly valued especially if you actually listened to NPR. But most did not."
I am curious as to how you reached this conclusion.
And does NPR know the age and gender of their commenters?
I actually read Ann's entry (imagine that) and the link therein.
Too old and too male. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Also, for any longtime NPR listener who is also a longtime NPR web page reader and commenter, the shift is undeniable.
NPR is doing its part to fundamentally transforming respect for their older male listeners who attended College before the days of mandatory re-education replaced a Classical Liberal Arts Education.
We just got thrown into the memory hole where we can do no harm.
traditionalguy said...
NPR is doing its part to fundamentally transforming respect for their older male listeners who attended College before the days of mandatory re-education replaced a Classical Liberal Arts Education.
We just got thrown into the memory hole where we can do no harm.
8/20/16, 7:41 AM
________
A little victimy (last sentence), but not untrue.
"HT said...
That’s interesting. As a long time NPR listener and reader and commenter, the slow shift from commenters who were obviously NPR listeners to majority non-NPR listeners and more or less haters of NPR has been undeniable to anyone who could read. It’s too bad. I enjoyed the comments section when it was a single shared worldview"
FIFY
Don't be trifling.
And I read it too HT. What is your point?
HT said: "I actually read Ann's entry (imagine that) and the link therein."
The link: "they appear more likely to be older men.......They overwhelmingly comment via the desktop (younger users tend to find NPR.org via mobile).
That's a stretch.
(An old white guy not typing from a desktop)
I was a regular poster for years on the Charlie Rose forums, even though I never watched the show. We actually used to have great debates there.
For a while, there was a cadre of conservatives on there who held the line against the far left moonbats who frequented the site, countering their links to counterpunch, etc., with actual facts. (In fact, we took special glee in only posting links from sources they couldn't just dismiss out of hand, like the NY Times and Wapo.) The abuse from them was pretty extraordinary. One by one, the conservatives got sick of it and left, including me. Eventually it became so utterly one sided and deranged that the boards were closed down altogether.
And that was *without* the forum moderators trying to "help" things in that direction (at least as far as I know). With NPR actively siding with their moonbats, I have no doubt they'll reach ignition point even sooner.
Hey, I managed to get myself banned from The Gateway Pundit for contributing what I thought were reasonably critical posts on a particular subject. (The Pundit was denouncing a major news organization, and I expressed the view that the Pundit was equally guilty of his own journalistic lapses.)
Funny, life.
The Gateway guy is kind of a whacko - he seems to like to post rumors not real stories.
Like all Leftists, NPR can't brook any dissent. It must must dish its propaganda unopposed. And, of course, it can't handle the truth.
Looking forward to Trump defunding NPR.
NPR is like most lefty sites and blogs. They graciously accept comments ...... until the tide turns. Then, the block or censor button is engaged.
Sounds like they felt they were getting a lot of trolls. I have to say, I like reading comments, even if I don't bother to comment myself. But there are few sites that have comments worth reading anymore. Even sites with good primary articles seem to have been taken over by trolls in the comment section. You will see the same person posting over and over again with knee-jerk arguments that seem to adhere to some third party talking points. I see this on both sides of the spectrum - right and left. Makes me think there are people out there being paid to do this, but I could be wrong. They could just be hobbyists.
Humperdink, you are obviously not a regular NPR listener or commenter. I have been commenting on there for years, and I would say more of my comments are critical, but not in the "Leftist State Propaganda" vein. But sometimes my comments are just about the content of the piece. Before the boards were taken over, it was by no means a way to cheerlead for NPR, so you are unsurprisingly wrong.
I used to try to comment on a few conservative sites. After one or two comments, I would just get blocked, so I gave up.
HT. I am an irregular listener NPR, so on that point you are correct. During those occasional times I have listened to NPR, the view is always (as in 100%) from the commie left-wing point of view. I suspect NPR, in the comment area, was expecting support at that same level. When that did not happen, off with the comments.
Regarding conservative sites blocking you, that absolutely stuns me. Can you provide the sites which blocked you? I am genuinely curious.
NPR is mental chewing gum for second-and third-tier humanities professors. Give me a topic, and I can write the NPR story for you...they are all the same.
An interesting and characteristic change over time has been the move up the tonal scale of the on-the-air personalities. The baritones have been replaced with tenors, and the authoritative female metzo-voices with girlish soprano lisps.
NPR in the age of digital media is an on-going insult to taxpayers--it is the leftist haut-bourgeoisie being underwritten by the great American public.
I denounce their free-loading at the public slop-trough.
What percentage of their budget do they receive federally? My complaint is that it's NOT public enough as they get more from corporations than the federal government.
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
free republic
The comment sections of NPR or the Guardian are generally better than the articles, since many commentators point out the flaws, inaccuracies in stories or bring more information that may have been omitted by the author. There are flame wars that happen, but most comments are not of that category.
I would point out that the worst offenders are the Sites or Authors that don't allow comments - James Fallows of the Atlantic, Ta-Nasty Coates or J Goldberg (rarely) there. On the Media at NPR dropped comments too. All of those writers or shows are so convinced of their holy writ that they can't possibly allow the unwashed to disagree.
NPR is stopping comments because so many are now anti-Hillary. Can't have that in an election year.
NPR discovers Power Law
HT--If government funding is unimportant, then why all the shrieking and moaning when the Republicans, in a brief moment of sanity, talked about turning off the federal spigot? NPR flies the flag that they are funded by dues from member stations, but that avoids the question of where the member stations get their funds--usually from public sources (university budgets, etc.) supplemented by listener support. I say make it all listener-supported.
Fund drives every week, baby.
"During those occasional times I have listened to NPR, the view is always (as in 100%) from the commie left-wing point of view."
Really? 100%? That's a tough nut to crack. I don't think you are listening as well as you could be, and I'll just leave it at that.
That might not be possible. I will only start to contribute again when they kick the corporate habit.
HT--that's funny. I contribute now. I was thinking about cutting them off until they lose government funding.
A comment section is a beautiful thing.
I listen to All Things Considered and Market Place. Both are excellent programs. NRO's the Corner has recently adopted essentially the same policy, requiring you to comment via Facebook. It is a way of getting rid of anonymous commenters. As a consequence they seem to have lost most of their commenters.
Makes perfect sense to me. The old geezers they have aren't going anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if my almost 95 year old father were still a NPR member. A lot of things are on autopilot at his age. Dropped his University Club membership a year or two ago, after finding he went once or twice the previous several years. I have a lot of stuff I pay for based on inertia, and I am a generation younger. Luckily, NPR isn't one of them (the hard core leftist views of Dianne Rehms did it for me a decade or so ago). NPR is in a demographic death spiral, and their only way out is to somehow, desperately, find a way of attracting a younger, more colored, etc clientele. Of course, filling the airways with symphony music, and geezers and geezerettes talking, isn't going to do the trick.
@HT. Maybe my sample size is too small, but I doubt it. If NPR had would a present a somewhat conservative point every now and then, the defunding effort would never rear it's ugly head.
"second-and third-tier humanities professors."
I remember remarking to the spouse once that, based on the stories most constantly flogged, NPR clearly envisioned its primary audience to be middle-aged lesbian professors at Midwestern colleges.
"a younger, more colored, etc clientele."
Thus the hip, young Social Justice Power Rangers of the "Race Card Team", or whatever they call themselves.
I want all government funding and I have been advocating for them to also make more programs (half) available for a conservative point of view. The thing is, public radio is a concept that is completely antithetical to conservatives, so that would be a bit tricky. I am likely alone on this blog of likening my hypothetical to giving Muslim fundamentalists the chance to vote. Once in office, they impose sharia law and other anti democratic measures. So, no more elections.
You would contribute once they kick the government habit? Nothing stopping you now from contributing to Every Other Radio Station on the planet which is run 100% by advertising and corporations.
All your too old male commenters are belong to Althouse.
HT--You didn't read my post carefully. I contribute now. I am thinking about cutting them off. You apparently do not contribute now. You are probably more rational than I am.
Meade said...
All your too old male commenters are belong to Althouse.
Pretty much.
@ARM - the Facebook thing at NRO is a horrible idea. I have an account there almost exclusively for commenting on that site, and routinely het emails that I have over three hundred people trying to friend me. I just like my privacy too much for that medium - or maybe my partner likes hers too much, and I would have a hard time editing out the stuff in my life that doesn't affect hers. In any case, I went #NEVERNRO when they went #NEVERTRUMP. Any group that pretends to be conservative, but effectively supports Crooked Hillary, isn't going to get my patronage or my readership.
Sorry, no - I did see your comment that you do comment. I don't - as you know - because that it's "public" is to me bordering on a joke. But I'm wondering if government funding is what you don't want, why not contribute to the large array of radio stations that don't accept it?
Meade--Arguing over NPR is a bit like fighting over aisle seats on Malaysia Air Flight 370.
"You would contribute once they kick the government habit?"
Rush Limbaugh does not get any government funding, are you sending your money to his program? And yes, Rush Limbaugh is much more informative than npr.
HT--I contribute to a lot of things, including Althouse. I got a very nice, if somewhat impersonal, note from AA in response. In fact, I am going to contribute to Althouse again right now.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. NPR must (MUST) immediately institute a plan or plans to increase the diversity of their commenters or by fined by the EOC! This situation is OUTRAGEOUS.
Showing my age, I think that I mostly prefer the comments of the too old demographic, though I am pretty agnostic as to sex or gender. Their comments seem to be richer. Maybe it is life experiences. Or maybe in how we were educated. A lot of the real young commenters here are, frankly, boring. Esp the Crooked Hillary shills, many probably still living with their parents, and doing this for pocket money. If they voted before, it was likely for the guy who put them in the position they are now in, trying to elect that woman, for a temporary gig, while waiting for something better to open up. And, of course, it is all self defeating, since she has vowed to continue the failed economic policies that ultimately caused those shills of hers to have to continue to live with their parents in the first place.
I pretty much gave up on NPR completely earlier this year. Prior to that, there was almost always a moment, usually at least once a week, where they'd run something inane and I'd think to myself, "I am so glad I'm not contributing (directly) to this."
When I did listen, mostly on my 15-minute commute to and from work, I found myself keeping informal metrics – Time to First Eyeroll (generally about 5 minutes) and Time to Switching Off the Radio in Amused Disgust (more variable, probably 9 - 13 minutes).
A much improved NPR
Paco - I am with you, although I suspect we have different reasons. Partly it's just a function an individual of growing and learning, I think, while the radio station stays stunted in time. And then other times I think, I know, NPR has begun chopping up segments, shorter and punchier, which I can't stand, so obviously aimed at a particular demographic. That is usually an eyeroller for me.
I can visualize a Trump administration sticking a large fork in NPR.
What's the German satirical quite, something about the government dissolving the people and electing another?
Anyway NPR is just following the lead of Leftist politicians who clearly want to replace the old white men they used to have to deal with with younger non-native and non-white populations. Look up UK Labor party and immigration-it was an actual policy of that party to import tons of foreigners in order to reduce the power of the vote of the native population.
NPR can't force different people to listen, but they can take away a platform where the "wrong" people can talk back.
Again I say: is this not similar to anti-gay marriage people who advocated for getting rid of government-granted marriage altogether in response to gays getting the right to marry? You know, taking the ball and going home instread if letting the wring people play?
All Voices (Don't) Matter!
I thought it was saying they were too few and high maintenrance.
NPR always rang up "If you cut our funding, you'll lose Sesame Street!"
Well, HBO has Sesame Street,
So, what --- exactly --- is the need for NPR or PBS?
PBS: Where thousands work so dozens can watch.
I read that as saying only individual NPR reporters and editors should hold that much sway over published content.
When I did listen, mostly on my 15-minute commute to and from work, I found myself keeping informal metrics – Time to First Eyeroll (generally about 5 minutes) and Time to Switching Off the Radio in Amused Disgust (more variable, probably 9 - 13 minutes).
Pretty good impulse control.
You find Facists in the darnedest places.
The solution, the final solution: euthanasia and selective-child. They did think of it. At least twice.
@Ironclad,
NPR is stopping comments because so many are now anti-Hillary.
Ding,ding,ding,ding! You win the kewpie doll!
It's simply amazing how much they are in the tank for Hillary, even when it came to coverage of Sanders vs Clinton, to say nothing of Trump vs Clinton.
I remember what ETV was in my youth. Even the locally produced stuff from University of Alabama for the relative backwater of Alabama Educational TV was actually that --- educational. Now, it's politics all the damn time.
Except for Car Talk, & that's a zombie program now.
Amadeus 48: An interesting and characteristic change over time has been the move up the tonal scale of the on-the-air personalities. The baritones have been replaced with tenors, and the authoritative female metzo-voices with girlish soprano lisps.
So I'm not the only one who's noticed that. Just a hertz or two higher in frequency and some of the men would not be recognizable as male from their voices. What's up with that? Estrogens in the water supply? Infantilization? Animus against masculinity?
All the above? As you note, women's voices are also getting more and more infantilized (and accompanied by what I call the "Acela sneer" undertone, more and more unpleasant to listen to).
I'd be surprised if NPR had anything approaching a "diverse" listening audience.
HT: I want all government funding and I have been advocating for them to also make more programs (half) available for a conservative point of view.
Not possible. The liberal "long march through the institutions" (including public media) was completed a long time ago. "Conservative point of view" to the people controlling these organs means "David Brooks".
The thing is, public radio is a concept that is completely antithetical to conservatives...
It's theoretically antithetical to neoliberal neoconservatism, which is what passes for "conservatism" in contemporary America - to the people with the megaphone, anyway. Anything else is simply beyond the pale.
Hey NPR listeners. Get Sirius satellite radio. It will change your life. Commercial free music. CNBC, BBC, Fox News, traffic in big cities, etc.
I am a frequent NPR commenter. During the primaries there was strong support for Bernie. Now that the election is Trump vs Hillary, the comments are 98% pro Hillary. So anti-Hillary comments are not the reason for the shutdown. I have noticed that in the past 18 months as other lefty sites have ended their comment section, the comments on NPR have deteriorated. Rather than commenting on content they simply insult the other commenters. I am guessing cost cutting. Gotta pay for the fancy new DC digs and all the new diversity programing.
Regarding conservative sites blocking you, that absolutely stuns me. Can you provide the sites which blocked you? I am genuinely curious.
Ace of Ace of Spades has lately gone on a banning spree. But Ace is, I think, a very disturbed individual. I mean, deeply depressed, with severe anger issues. Back in the day, way back, I was one of the AoS regulars, a member of the original crew or self-styled "morons," now mostly gone. Ace seems a sad angry person, and that's one of the reasons I left. He's gotten angrier, desperately so, almost bipolar in his rages. He also has a self-editing problem -- his posts are too long and rambling and repetitive -- but that's a different issue.
Roughcoat said...
"Ace seems a sad angry person..."
I have seen that, too. The edginess now seems brittle.
I am Laslo.
Give 'em credit.
I bet they really worked hard trying to construct a metric to silence opposition...going so far as google estimates. Impressive.
But I call "platform shaming".
Laslo -
Yes indeed. Glad you said that. Good to know that I'm not the only one.
Interesting take on Ace. I only read him late, late at night, in the hiatus between my first and second sleep, when nothing else is really happening. I don't read that critically, but do enjoy the art, but unfortunately, the chess is now beyond me (after giving it up for most of the last 50 years). Not quite as bad as The Other McCain, who seems to have gone all anti-lesbian feminist (but he is good for reminding everyone of just that - that a lot of modern feminism has its roots in man hating lesbianism, mostly by women too ugly to get dates).
Re Ace, a long time ago he used to be very funny. There's no funny anymore in the posts he writes. Relatedly, his movie reviews are simply excruciating -- long and tedious, rambling and reptitive. I think deep down inside Ace there's a film critic/screenplay writer clawing to get out.
I stopped reading The Other McCain. I don't quite know why, just got tired of him I guess. I've stopped visiting most of the blogs I used to read on a daily basis. I'm tired of blogs, mostly, except this blog and The Belmont Club. I'm tired of the news, tired of politics. I'm tired of the world. Increasingly, I find myself going Benedict. I ordered a St. Benedict medallion just the other day, waiting for it to arrive. I'll wear on my neck chain with my crucifix and dogtags inscribed with Psalm 139:9.
Good move, considering the caliber of the recent influx of commenters.
Good move, considering the caliber of the recent influx of commenters.
My weariness has nothing whatsoever to do with the caliber of the commenters.
Angelyne: As you note, women's voices are also getting more and more infantilized (and accompanied by what I call the "Acela sneer" undertone, more and more unpleasant to listen to).
I don't know, but I have noticed that it is generational, crosses media, and tends to make the counterexamples pack a whollop.
For example, there is an extraordinarily good computer game that won a number of "Game of the Year" awards in 2013, called "Bioshock Infinite." It's mostly set in what would otherwise be an unexceptional American city of 1912, apart from the fact that it's floating in mid-air. In the game, you are accompanied by a young woman, about 19 years old, whom you free from a tower early on. Now, I don't know much about 19-year-old American women circa 1912. But one thing I do know is they didn't say absolutely everything they said with vocal fry. This was a big enough problem that I had to actively work to ignore it, because otherwise, the young voice actress did an absolutely spectacular job. She just needed a good dialect coach.
By contrast, there's Julia Stiles' naturally throaty contralto voice in the Jason Bourne franchise. I find it extremely sexy, and I can't help but wonder how much of that is just for being exotic in early 21st-century America.
Sirius is a great suggestion.
Given that I never listen to NPR, its hard for me to care. Terry Gross used to have the occasional interesting interview, but now she mainly does Pop singers and leftists, so I stopped listening.
Seriously, I don't blame NPR. They were probably getting lots of white male comments and what kind of loser, self-hating, white male listens to NPR?
NPR is aimed at women over 35, girly men (straight and gay) and minorities.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
For a while AoS seemed to suffer form trump derangement syndrome. Fortunately, he's dialed it back, otherwise he would've gone on my "Do not read" list along with "Right Scoop" "red state" "Weekly standard" and "American Spectator".
I find his chess problems fun, and his posts interesting. I agree that he himself, is probably a neo-con/former liberal who's posing as conservative for fun and profit.
RE: "It's mostly set in what would otherwise be an unexceptional American city of 1912, apart from the fact that it's floating in mid-air."
Um, and also the statues of the Founding Fathers being worshipped, literally, as gods, with fanatical followers at every step. And this is how you're *introduced* to the city.
It was enough to make me uninstall the game, despite how promising the gameplay looked in the previews. Yes, I know, the left in the game isn't depicted any better than the right, from what I understand, being violent revolutionaries and all. Except that lefties in the *real world* are *often* violent revolutionaries, whereas the game's depiction of the extreme right has never existed except in your typical libtard masturbatory fantasy. So the idea that the game treated "both sides equally" doesn't wash with me. It's a mark of how bad propaganda has become that an accurate portrayal of the Left put alongside a completely psychotic and delusional depiction of the right is as close to "fair and balanced" as we've come to expect.
HT wrote: As a long time NPR listener and reader and commenter, the slow shift from commenters who were obviously NPR listeners to majority non-NPR listeners and more or less haters of NPR has been undeniable to anyone who could read.
Undeniable? Apparently HT is unaware that undeniable is Newspeak for I have no defensible reason that make the following claim
In lieu of evidence I hereby declare HT's point absurd, ludicrous, null and void.
I said: "Regarding conservative sites blocking you, that absolutely stuns me. Can you provide the sites which blocked you? I am genuinely curious."
The reason it stuns me is that lefties are such soft targets. Emotionally driven, without a factual basis.
(Ex: a few days ago I mentioned Soc. Sec. was operating as a Ponzi scheme where today's investors are being used to pay yesterday's investors - the same scheme that landed Bernie Madoff in the pokey. The opposition argued otherwise. He stated the current investor's is safely invested.)
A Ponzi "scheme" is safe, as long as every investor does not ask for their money at the same time. Madoff would be free except for too many of his investors needing money because of the crash.
That's not only OT, its incredibly boring.
But whatever.
Blogger rcocean said...
For a while AoS seemed to suffer form trump derangement syndrome. Fortunately, he's dialed it back, otherwise he would've gone on my "Do not read" list along with "Right Scoop" "red state" "Weekly standard" and "American Spectator".
I find his chess problems fun, and his posts interesting. I agree that he himself, is probably a neo-con/former liberal who's posing as conservative for fun and profit.
He actually blocked me on Twitter because he said something like, "If you're a Trump supporter let me know so I can block you." and I responded, "I'm a Trump supporter."
Blocked.
He actually blocked me on Twitter because he said something like, "If you're a Trump supporter let me know so I can block you." and I responded, "I'm a Trump supporter."
Well, if that's true, I'll add him to the list.
"That's not only OT, its incredibly boring.
But whatever."
The post was petering out anyway ...... but whatever.
Full Moon said...A Ponzi "scheme" is safe, as long as every investor does not ask for their money at the same time
Did you mean to type "and as long as you can keep getting new suckers to sign up," Full Moon? If not that's a really stupid statement you made...if not you're welcome for the assist.
[Just, you know, to point it out: there are more than 7B people in the world, but even if you're only doing geometric grown by 3 (1 person gets 3 people, who get 3 people, etc) you'll exceed the Earth's population in about 22 steps--going by 10 it's only 11 steps; needless to say the vast majority of people will be at that bottom rung and get screwed.]
Full Moon said...A Ponzi "scheme" is safe, as long as every investor does not ask for their money at the same time
Did you mean to type "and as long as you can keep getting new suckers to sign up," Full Moon? If not that's a really stupid statement you made.
Actually Full Moon is correct. Two things are needed for a Ponzi scheme to stay in business. Keep getting new suckers as you have pointed out and ...... 2) there is not a run on the bank as Full Moon said. If either one of these aspects fail, the Ponzi scheme collapses.
PS: We may be chastised for going OT.
I love love love Ace. More now than ever.
His posts show a great deal more self-awareness than most other bloggers -- and that is saying a lot, as bloggers tend to be an introspective bunch.
He really tries to dig down to the roots of why we think about politics the way that we do, and comes up with some amazing insights, especially on the #NeverTrump movement.
His twitter feed is the funniest one out there, even funnier than iowahawkblog.
As for those who think he is "a disturbed individual....deeply depressed, with severe anger issues." All I can say is...
Dudes...You wrote that insight in a comments thread. Of a blog. Kind of a political blog. A kinda political blog that is hosted on blogspot and doesn't even have it's own domain name. A blog that you comment on, well, quite a bit...
(Queue the Cheshire cat quote...)
Qwinn: Um, and also the statues of the Founding Fathers being worshipped, literally, as gods, with fanatical followers at every step. And this is how you're *introduced* to the city.
It was enough to make me uninstall the game, despite how promising the gameplay looked in the previews. Yes, I know, the left in the game isn't depicted any better than the right, from what I understand, being violent revolutionaries and all. Except that lefties in the *real world* are *often* violent revolutionaries, whereas the game's depiction of the extreme right has never existed except in your typical libtard masturbatory fantasy.
If you immediately identified Father Comstock and Columbia's "Founders" with some contemporary American notion of "extreme right," I would have to respectfully suggest you're overinterpreting—and know for a fact that, if you uninstalled the game and never completed it, then you missed the big reveal that makes Comstock's choices make sense, albeit without making them excusable (indeed, from any fact-based evaluation of the game's ending, the judgment of Comstock is indescribably harsh).
Furthermore, if you don't find the depiction of Comstock believable, I suggest you do some study of the history of the various personality cults and other religious innovations that had some currency in late-19th-century America. And here we come to the crux of the matter: if you're familiar with Ken Levine's previous work on games such as System Shock 2 and Bioshock, you should know that if he has an axe to grind, it's against personality cults. Spoiler alert: in Bioshock, the putative "bad guy," thinly-veiled Ayn Rand stand-in Andrew Ryan, turns out not to actually be the bad guy, and among the dead smugglers you encounter in the game are smugglers of Bibles. Levine's problem with "Ryan" isn't his philosophy; it's his totalitarianism and his inability to see that he's created the conditions that give rise to the game's real villain. Bioshock Infinite is similar, in a sense. Does Comstock do bad things, including form a cult that's a kind of nationalist perversion of Christianity? Yes, absolutely, he does. But it's important to understand that Bioshock Infinite does not celebrate this. On the contrary, the fact that Columbia is a dystopia lying beneath a very thin veneer of late-Victorian hail-fellow-well-met becomes painfully clear, oh, about 10 minutes in play time after your baptism and encounter with the worshippers of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.
So let me please urge you to reconsider, and reinstall it—especially with the DLC packages, "Burial at Sea" episodes 1 and 2. Although if you haven't played "Bioshock," I strongly recommend doing so before playing "Burial at Sea." I think you'll find "Bioshock" and "Bioshock Infinite" ultimately to be very morally gratifying, without making the error of lapsing into any kind of simplistic left/right political advocacy.
White folks are older on average than most other races in the US. That's what this is about.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा