Nazi-killing game 'wolfenstein ii' angers nazis with 'make america nazi-free again'

[Deleted]

Can you link me your source?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_as_less.html

- - - Updated - - -

There is no basis in reality to the claim that they are linking Trump supporters to Nazis,

I don't really see the issue frankly. It is what more or less everyone believes apart from Trump supporters themselves, who are a small segment of the global video game market. Similarly I doubt North Koreans or ISIS or whatever like being demonized much either-tough, if everyone else hates you, no one cares.

[ablock87]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_as_less.html

According to pew research center, sites like Salon and Slate are highly biased and non-credible. Their "research" is also not cited and unavailable to be dissected by the general public; they can make up the numbers as they'd like.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/...a-credibility/

Sorry, this statistic seems absurd and fabricated.

[Moralgy]

I don't really see the issue frankly. It is what more or less everyone believes apart from Trump supporters themselves, who are a small segment of the global video game market. Similarly I doubt North Koreans or ISIS or whatever like being demonized much either-tough, if everyone else hates you, no one cares.

I see an issue with it because it is fairly silly to claim that using Trump's meme in any way, shape or form associates his supporters with how you altered the meme.

"Make America asshole free again"
"Make America nice again"
"Make America anything again"

Is making a claim, but it is not associating Trump fanboys with it what so ever. That is when people are inserting their biases into the situation. People alter slogans left and right to support their own things, and in wolfenstein's case, it is to promote their video game. It is normal, but in no way relates the fans of the origin of the slogan to the new version.

Basically, people claiming Bethesda is making a political statement regarding Trump fans based on that tweet are just being silly and need to look at the situation logically without inserting their pre-existing biases into the statement.

As for that survey, seems very sketchy given the website. I really wouldn't trust that for any real claims. It is a survey which can come into many problems especially given it was over the internet. Stick to peer reviewed studies over surveys just imo, especially when it comes to something so charged as the topic involved.

[Deleted]

According to pew research center, sites like Salon and Slate are highly biased and non-credible. Their "research" is also not cited and unavailable to be dissected by the general public; they can make up the numbers as they'd like.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/...a-credibility/

Sorry, this statistic seems absurd and fabricated.

You don't understand how studies work.

The study was carried out by Gfk. That's a German market research firm. They do market research-they don't care about the internal politics of another country. Their reputation and income depend on producing accurate and unbiased studies.

If those studies happen to produce conclusions support left-wing views then they are not going to appear on Fox. They are going to appear in left-wing publications. It doesn't mean the study was biased.

Now, if you were going to talk about the editorial bias on sites like Slate, as the articles you cite do, that would be different. Obviously they have a left-wing agenda.

But, we weren't talking about that.

In future, it would be helpful if you could a) learn to google so I don't have to endlessly repost the same source and b) acquire a basic understanding of how unbiased research works and is disseminated in the media, so again, I don't have to endlessly repost the same information for the benefit of each individual clueless Trump supporter.

EDIT: It took me about 30 seconds to find a corroborating source this time from Reuters/Ipsos (please God no one tell me Reuters/Ipsos are left-wing sources):

Nearly half of Trump’s supporters described African Americans as more “violent” than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more “criminal” than whites, while 40 percent described them as more “lazy” than whites.

[Deleted]

Are we still pretending that the out-roar on those Tweets is due to the fact that the player will be killing Nazis in a Wolfenstein game?

There was outrage after the first trailer. It didn't have any slogan. Just good ol nazi killing

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a leap at all. The slogan form is the same.

And Trump's slogan is used to show us nazis are bad. Is that the issue? Should it be Make America Nazi Again?

[Deleted]

There was outrage after the first trailer. It didn't have any slogan. Just good ol nazi killing

But what about the right to free speech of the poor virtual nazis?

[Dragonhawk]

Oh good point. Wow, you seem to know a lot about this forum for a 10 day old account lol.

While i have only recently registered I have followed MMO Champion for many years now, having played WoW for over 10 yrs MMO C was pretty much a mandatory site to have bookmarked.

- - - Updated - - -

Alts accounts are easy to spot, I mean what idiot would sign up at a gaming forum to just post about politics.

That would make you then either blind as a mole or dumb as a brick. Considering your avatar, Im going to guess its the latter. Also the fact that your signed up and posting on political topics, plus felt the need to have a highly political avatar in a gaming forum, I would look in the mirror before calling people names, as it only makes you look like the bigger idiot when you do.

Considering that you can almost always find a political topic on the recent forum box, on the MMOC home page I would say there are alot of people who do what I am doing. Now I am sure that when topics come up about games I am currently playing like ESO and SC or if a discussion comes up about WoW hunters I will likely respond in those threads also. I dont post to create spam in every topic, I post when I have something to say about a topic.

[GennGreymane]

But what about the right to free speech of the poor virtual nazis?

do we want computers to have free speech?

[ablock87]

You don't understand how studies work.

The study was carried out by Gfk. That's a German market research firm. They do market research-they don't care about the internal politics of another country. Their reputation and income depend on producing accurate and unbiased studies.

If those studies happen to produce conclusions support left-wing views then they are not going to appear on Fox. They are going to appear in left-wing publications. It doesn't mean the study was biased.

Now, if you were going to talk about the editorial bias on sites like Slate, as the articles you cite do, that would be different. Obviously they have a left-wing agenda.

But, we weren't talking about that.

In future, it would be helpful if you could a) learn to google so I don't have to endlessly repost the same source and b) acquire a basic understanding of how unbiased research works and is disseminated in the media, so again, I don't have to endlessly repost the same information for the benefit of each individual clueless Trump supporter.

EDIT: It took me about 30 seconds to find a corroborating source this time from Reuters/Ipsos (please God no one tell me Reuters/Ipsos are left-wing sources):

Nearly half of Trump’s supporters described African Americans as more “violent” than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more “criminal” than whites, while 40 percent described them as more “lazy” than whites.

No need to get hostile because you realized your source was bad. Really now, Slate? You can do better.

[Deleted]

No need to get hostile because you realized your source was bad. Really now, Slate? You can do better.

The source is Gfk, a politically neutral German market research company. Slate were one of dozens of people to publish data from the study. I have just very patiently explained that.

Did you not understand that? Or are you trying to deceive people as to the actual source because your ignorance was exposed and you feel humiliated and embarassed?

[OrcsRLame]

Ah the free market at work. I love how Neo-Nazis are just now getting angry about the Wolfenstein series. Nobody tell them about the old CoD games.

The way the article frames things is retarded though.

- - - Updated - - -

The source is Gfk, a politically neutral German market research company. Slate were one of dozens of people to publish data from the study. I have just very patiently explained that.

Did you not understand that? Or are you trying to deceive people as to the actual source because your ignorance was exposed and you feel humiliated and embarassed?

Personally, I tend not to trust polling data. Experiments done by the social sciences are notoriously difficult to reproduce. And if it's not reproducible, it's not science.

[Deleted]

Personally, I tend not to trust polling data. Experiments done by the social sciences are notoriously difficult to reproduce. And if it's not reproducible, it's not science.

It isn't difficult to reproduce the findings. That's why I linked to two independent studies showing much the same results.

[Travis B]

Ironically the most malicious nazi haters are those most likely to fall in line with a Hitler 2.0.

Right, you keep telling yourself that buddy.

[zmp]

Anyone else hyped about this game? Cant wait to kill Antifas, i mean, nazis/terrorists in a videogame.

[Deleted]

Fuck me, people can take this stance in every videogame.
Resident evil: zombie life's matter!

[primalmatter]

it looks like nobody had a problem with the game but the staff started to act political and people don't want any type of political bullshit near their games right or left

This seems the most likely... its not like they are breaking new ground here...

[Kraenen]

Remember everyone is a Nazi by loose association

[Mormolyce]

According to pew research center, sites like Salon and Slate are highly biased and non-credible. Their "research" is also not cited and unavailable to be dissected by the general public; they can make up the numbers as they'd like.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/...a-credibility/

Sorry, this statistic seems absurd and fabricated.

From your own link:

Factual Reporting: HIGH

You need to distinguish between bias and fabrication. Different things.

Anyone else hyped about this game? Cant wait to kill Antifas, i mean, nazis/terrorists in a videogame.

Yeah, Nazis make great stand ins for anti-fascists ahahaha!

it looks like nobody had a problem with the game but the staff started to act political and people don't want any type of political bullshit near their games right or left

It's apparently "political" to say the US should be Nazi-free lol.

[Mehrunes]

You don't understand how studies work.

The study was carried out by Gfk. That's a German market research firm. They do market research-they don't care about the internal politics of another country. Their reputation and income depend on producing accurate and unbiased studies.

If those studies happen to produce conclusions support left-wing views then they are not going to appear on Fox. They are going to appear in left-wing publications. It doesn't mean the study was biased.

Now, if you were going to talk about the editorial bias on sites like Slate, as the articles you cite do, that would be different. Obviously they have a left-wing agenda.

But, we weren't talking about that.

In future, it would be helpful if you could a) learn to google so I don't have to endlessly repost the same source and b) acquire a basic understanding of how unbiased research works and is disseminated in the media, so again, I don't have to endlessly repost the same information for the benefit of each individual clueless Trump supporter.

EDIT: It took me about 30 seconds to find a corroborating source this time from Reuters/Ipsos (please God no one tell me Reuters/Ipsos are left-wing sources):

Nearly half of Trump’s supporters described African Americans as more “violent” than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more “criminal” than whites, while 40 percent described them as more “lazy” than whites.

Yes, that Reuters source talking about violence and crime totally corroborates claims of blacks being less evolved. Totally. And speaking of acquiring basic understanding of research (let's add basic understanding of language to that), your Slate source didn't say your 52% claim came from GfK's findings. It clearly talks about how the authors found GfK's results (of 38% respondents that were white "considering" black people to be less evolved; the reason behind quotation marks will be explained later on) to be surprising, so they (i.e. the authors of that Slate article) made another survey through Mechanical Turk. And the finding of 52% Trump supporters considering black people to be less evolved came from that. With Mechanical Turk being a crowd-sourcing platform, where nothing you said about GfK has to apply. Who knows what methodology they used, how representative the second survey was and the like. Slate obviously didn't disclose any of that. For some completely inexplicable reason.

And the survey they gave to GfK to conduct in the first place? A picture with silhouettes. Where someone who doesn't know what a cro-magnon human is would see a person with some thicker ass and more accentuated facial features. And, for some reason, a spear. Given how it came from Slate writers, possibly to play on biases of people who think about still-tribal people hunting with, you know, spears, when asked about native Africans. And the numerical scale is fucking dogshit. How is a cro-magnon 60-80 when a chimpanzee is 0-20? Cro-magnon is a goddamn homo sapiens sapiens. Given how it was a contract work, sure GfK may have had proper methodology in conducting the surveys. That doesn't mean the material they were contracted to survey was free from bias. Not GfK's bias, but its actual creators'.

When berating people for being clueless (never mind with applying Trump supporter labels because I neither know nor particularly care if ablock87 is one), it helps to not be clueless oneself. Actually reading your sources is a good place to start.

@ablock87 just for lols.
@Algy for good measure too. I know they already expressed some degree of doubt over the survey, but notifying them just in case, since I don't want them to be tainted by your dishonest misrepresentation of anything pertaining to this sub-topic (starting with what your source actually said).

[Moralgy]

Yes, that Reuters source talking about violence and crime totally corroborates claims of blacks being less evolved. Totally. And speaking of acquiring basic understanding of research (let's add basic understanding of language to that), your Slate source didn't say your 52% claim came from GfK's findings. It clearly talks about how GfK's findings (of 38% respondents that were white "considering" black people to be less evolved; the reason behind quotation marks will be explained later on) to be surprising, so they (i.e. the authors of that Slate article) made another survey through Mechanical Turk. And the finding of 52% Trump supporters considering black people to be less evolved came from that. With Mechanical Turk being a crowd-sourcing platform, where nothing you said about GfK has to apply. Who knows what methodology they used, how representative the second survey was and the like. Slate obviously didn't disclose any of that. For some completely inexplicable reason.

And the survey they gave to GfK to conduct in the first place? A picture with silhouettes. Where someone who doesn't know what a cro-magnon human is would see a person with some thicker ass and more accentuated facial features. And, for some reason, a spear. Given how it came from Slate writers, possibly to play on biases of people who think about still-tribal people hunting with, you know, spears, when asked about native Africans. And the numerical scale is fucking dogshit. How is a cro-magnon 60-80 when a chimpanzee is 0-20? Cro-magnon is a goddamn homo sapiens sapiens. Given how it was a contract work, sure GfK may have had proper methodology in conducting the surveys. That doesn't mean the material they were contracted to survey was free from bias. Not GfK's bias, but its actual creators's.

When berating people for being clueless (never mind with applying Trump supporter labels because I neither know nor particularly care if ablock87 is one), it helps to not be clueless oneself. Actually reading your sources is a good place to start.

@ablock87 just for lols.
@Algy for good measure too. I know they already expressed some degree of doubt over the survey, but notifying them just in case, since I don't want them to be tainted by your dishonest misrepresentation of anything pertaining to this sub-topic (starting with what your source actually said).

Ahhhh, so they conflated the GFK survey with another one to get to their "findings" with the hopes of convincing readers. Thank you for digging through that mess! I saw the source, topic, and was unable to find an actual page with all their methodology and results and nope'd out of it. If it isn't in a proper study form I rarely read or trust the findings since so much opinion can be thrown into an article "explaining the findings".