Far Cry 4 PS4 Part #4 Culture Wars Ending
Game Playthrough Golden Path Mission Friendly Fire Kill Far Cry 4 https://store.playstation.com/#!/en-us/tid=CUSA00496_00.
By: Johnny Carter #39;s Gaming
See the original post:
Far Cry 4 PS4 Part #4 Culture Wars Ending - Video
Far Cry 4 Part 32 Culture Wars XB360
By: Weird Gamer89
See original here:
Far Cry 4 Part 32 Culture Wars XB360 - Video
The Classic Books of Western Civilization and America #39;s Culture Wars - University Course (1996)
In the Western classical tradition, Homer (/homr/; Ancient Greek: [hmros], Hmros) is the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and is revered a...
By: Reas Port
Read the original post:
The Classic Books of Western Civilization and America's Culture Wars - University Course (1996) - Video
What's been going on with the gaming community? Raph Koster, Gordon Walton and Rich Vogel are veterans of the online gaming space, and know a thing or two about how groups form and behave on the internet. At GDC, the three presented important findings for community managers about how to gain control over an increasingly depressing work environment.
We now live in an age where the internet filters results for you based on assumptions about what you're like drawn from geographic location or other patterns. This creates a phenomenon called a "filter bubble," says Koster, where increasingly one's perception of the world is led by online targeting. Your average online user will increasingly see only those news sources and even political candidates that agree with their own views -- and anyone who's ever Facebook-blocked a relative with offensive political views has become complicit in this sort of filtering.
In this climate, says Koster, the common context shared by disparate groups begins to erode, and homogenous groups crystallize. "As noble as we wish we are, we're not -- given the choice, people hang out with people like them," says Koster.
"Given a limited population, over time, not only will we [form]groups that are like us, but the larger group will exterminate the other one," he says. "In simulations, that's what happens: They literally commit genocide, they literally chase everyone else out of the room. It's a distasteful fact about human nature, and if our definition about who we are is rigid, then you're going to have that conflict."
People tend to make assumptions about behavior based on character, when in fact behavior is contextual and based on complex and deeply-felt beliefs. The theory goes that people are most likely to treat another person well when they feel they will see that person again. Trust is established through repeated interactions.
"This is how the world works, and some of this is uncomfortable. We doing community management have to deal with that, and part of the problem is that a lot of this has changed out from under the best practices we talked about 14 years ago," Koster says. "A lot of the things we take for granted as best practices just don't work anymore."
For example, look at what free to play systems have done to the idea of persistent identity in games -- it's rooted in pulling in as many accounts as possible and churning through those that won't turn into paying users, and each time you log in you're part of a different group, with no attachment to your online identity or that of others.
"Without friction of some type, you end up in a place where it's difficult to create a peaceful community," says Walton.
"You can do anything you pretty much want, and that's a problem for communities in free-to-play," adds Vogel.
Our previous ideas about managing online communities or players were rooted in that persistence, the barrier to entry for account creation and maintenance, and systems of reputation and reward for good practices. Those elements are the "good fences that make good neighbors," as the saying goes. If players don't need to be invested in what others think of them, they're less likely to do their part to keep a community healthy.
Here is the original post:
Online community and culture wars: What do we know?
President Barack Obama talks with senior adviser David Axelrod at the White House in 2009. Axelrod's new book claims Obama hid his true feelings on same-sex marriage while campaigning in 2008.
So word has finally come out, so to speak: President Barack Obama was for gay marriage all along, and lied about it in 2008 to get to the White House, according to David Axelrod, his former political guru. The news comes a little under two years after he came out (so to speak) in favor of it and a day after seven of the nine justices all but raised a rainbow flag over the Supreme Court by allowing same-sex marriage to proceed in Alabama.
The reaction brought this famous scene from "Casablanca" to mind.
[VIEWS YOU CAN USE: Obama's Gay Marriage Lie]
No one should have been surprised: When it was time for Obama in 2008 to serve in the culture wars over gay rights, he dodged the draft instead.
Like George W. Bush, who joined the Texas National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam but preserve his viability as a man in uniform during wartime, Obama opted for same-sex unions rather than risk offending independent voters who helped him make history. He even had a religious exemption of sorts, saying that his Christian faith, and other religions, holds a special place for the union of a man and a woman.
And it worked: he won, although its probably safe to say gay rights wasnt the single most defining issue of the 08 campaign. The rest of the story is history, including White House decisions to let Dont Ask, Dont Tell fade away, to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, Obamas famed evolution away from civil unions, and so on.
Depending on where you stand (or who you read), Axelrods revelation that Obama faked to the right on same-sex marriage is an outrageous deception of the American people, another example of the politics of cynicism or a noble lie, his decision to do the wrong thing for the right reason:
Its worth remembering, however, the notion of falsehoods and plausible deniability in politics is nothing new. The question is whether they lie well or badly, and if were paying enough attention to the actions as well as the words. New York Magazines Jonathan Chait pretty much nails that orthodox view:
A different way to think about the question is: Do voters have some right to judge candidates on their own preferred terms? In other words, putting aside the merits of gay marriage, which I endorse, one can also believe that a democracy works best when voters have accurate information about the candidates beliefs. I may not agree with the beliefs of anti-gay-marriage voters, but my disagreement with their beliefs should not deny them the ability to vote against a pro-gay-marriage candidate if they so choose.
Read the original post:
Long Read: Obama's Views on Same-Sex Marriage: More Creation Than Evolution