Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

PCGA Interview

Big Download interviews Intel's Matt Ployhar, who recently took over as the new president of the PC Gaming Alliance, a trade group ostensibly formed to promote PC gaming. They discuss his qualifications for the position and the alliance's plans for the future, which sound flexible at the moment, with Ployhar saying: "nothing is currently set in stone and everything is on the table at this point." He talks of how improving internal and external communication is one of their top priorities, and also seems to admit their organization has not yet exerted the kind of influence many have hoped for: "PC Gaming has sort of thrived more in spite of itself rather than by the actions of any single entity. It seems to be doing well now; but that can ebb and flow." That said, he does express optimism for the PCGA's future:

I'm honored, and flattered, to have been chosen to lead the PCGA. I'm very dedicated in trying to get PC Gaming on the footing I've always believed it should have been on. Which is simply to make it the most logical gaming choice for all consumers in any geography. PC Gaming done right means we're out executing what other alternatives are able to deliver. Ultimately it comes down to share of mind and wallet; and to that end I sincerely believe PC Gaming already is the most logical choice. Now all we have to do is fine tune a few things and get the message out there.

View
36 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

36. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 17:21 Jerykk
 
North Vietnam had an army AND guerrilla forces. That said, the situation was very similar to that of Iraq. The U.S. went in under the pretense of "saving" the country (as opposed to a hostile takeover) and as such, they had to hold back. If the U.S. had really wanted to take over Vietnam and didn't care about civilian casualties or public perception, the NVA would have been utterly destroyed.  
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 14:37 gilly775
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 05:37:

Can a few militias really stand against tanks, bombs and missiles?

Maybe not the definition of "militia," but North Vietnam did.....
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 10:48 space captain
 
who cares?? if you want some on topic shit, start talkin about it

or do you get your thrills by being comment police?

i had to comment on these comments about comments because i had nothing better to do
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 10:34 theyarecomingforyou
 
Did we really need to conform to Godwin's Law in a topic about the PCGA? Come on guys, I think we can do better at keeping on topic.  
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 10:31 InBlack
 
You two must be bored out of your brains. So let me settle this with one sentence.

Any form of social organization beyond the family unit or a loosely knit Clan community IS a government.

Now just add logic and all will be made clear.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 08:41 CommunistHamster
 
PCGA -> amateur geopolitics
gg blues.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:46 Jerykk
 
But most people don't leave so there's no loss. The rule was found to be unimportant, that's all. That's the rationalization people use to say they are free. You'll just go to another country, or farm, anyway.

The only way to be "free" is to go where there is no government. No system of government will ever offer complete freedom because there will always be rules you must obey. And if government is abolished, society inevitably returns to its tribal routes, with each tribe having its own rules you must obey.

People are willing to sacrifice some freedoms if they are compensated with equal or greater benefits in other areas. Such is the case with democratic governments such as the U.S.

False. Ghandi did it. It can be done. Organized and Peaceful non-compliance.

Fair enough, though one could argue that Gandhi was the exception that proved the rule. In any case, Gandhi had the support of thousands of Indians who were equally opposed to British rule. The vast majority of people in the U.S. think the government is okay. Not perfect but better than the alternatives. Definitely nowhere near as bad as British rule of India in the early 20th century.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:19 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 07:15:
Last I checked, cows don't get to leave their farms whenever they feel like it.

But most people don't leave so there's no loss. The rule was found to be unimportant, that's all. That's the rationalization people use to say they are free. You'll just go to another country, or farm, anyway.

You can observe all you want but it won't change a thing unless you start a violent revolution and overthrow the government.

False. Ghandi did it. It can be done. Organized and Peaceful non-compliance.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:17 LittleMe
 
I'm going to stop reading the thread because I need to be more peaceful and I suspect that now that the sun is rising across the country, the mind-controlled zombies will enter into the fray with fervent vitriol and vehement intolerance and ruthlessly verbally attack what I said as a form of egoic self-defense to fortify their world view and delusions that they live in a sane society.


 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:15 Jerykk
 
They only allow us to post because it makes us more productive in the illusion of freedom much like how farmers plant crops a bit farther from each other to increase productivity. A farmer might provide a cow a service like antibiotics or a bug bath but that doesn't mean the cow isn't considered property.

Last I checked, cows don't get to leave their farms whenever they feel like it. As I mentioned earlier, governments do restrict some freedoms for the sake of maintaining order. This is necessary, otherwise there would be nothing stopping the strong from preying on the weak. Without government, the populace would be naturally divided into tribes as a result of pack mentality, strength in numbers and so on. Some tribes would be peaceful, other tribes would not. Inevitably, the aggressive tribes would either destroy or assimilate the peaceful tribes, growing in size and power. When you come to think of it, governments are really just big tribes. If you live in a country, you have to abide by the rules of that tribe. If you break the rules, you are punished. If governments were abolished, they would inevitably just be reformed as tribes.

I ask you to observe the world around you over the years to come to learn more, how the state interferes and manipulates much of the food market against you as a consumer and instead they create more towards a corporatist system that services the elite.

You can observe all you want but it won't change a thing unless you start a violent revolution and overthrow the government. Of course, that wouldn't really change anything either. The people in power will always try to assert their ideals and principles upon others, much like you are trying to do right now. The question you need to ask is whether or not the benefits of your ideals outweigh the downsides.

So what defines tyranny is the question..

According to the dictionary, this defines tyranny:

1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.
6.
a tyrannical act or proceeding.


The first definition is the most applicable to government so let's look at that. Does the U.S. government exercise arbitrary or unrestrained power? No. If it did, the U.S. would just kill any opposition. Iraq? Nuked. Afghanistan? Nuked. North Korea? Nuked. Anyone who criticizes the government or its leaders? Dead (or imprisoned).

There are many parts of the government that exist to serve the people, even at the expense of government interests. The Constitution serves the people. The Supreme Court exists to ensure that the Constitution is enforced. Government officials are elected by the people. Many government policies are voted upon by the people. If you're a U.S. citizen, the government gives you rights that would otherwise not exist if there were no government. It would be much easier for the government to exercise their power if they didn't bother with courts or rights or any such shenanigans. Luckily, the government restrains itself and, as a whole, abides by the laws it creates (notwithstanding the few employees who fail in this regard). Iraq under Saddam was a tyranny. North Korea has always been a tyranny. Italy under Mussolini was a tyranny. Germany under Hitler was a tyranny. The U.S. is not a tyranny.

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2010, 07:31.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:05 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 06:58:
You can't call a government tyrannical based solely on the relatively few incidents where government workers didn't do their job properly. Such cases are in the vast minority compared to those where people do their job correctly.

So what defines tyranny is the question.. Right? A worldwide empire? Check. Thousands of nuclear arms? Check. An obsession with crime & punishment? Check. Here's a more thorough list of a fascist society:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant Sexism.
6. Controlled Mass Media.
7. Obsession with National Security.
8. Religion and Government are intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is protected.
10. Labor Power is suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.

I'll state that 6 is yes. 9 is a definite YES. 12 YES. 13 YES. 14 YES. 1 YES 2 YES 3 YES 4 YES. I could go on.

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2010, 07:12.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 07:00 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 06:38:
Do you think you'd be able to post on this website were it not for the government?

They only allow us to post because it makes us more productive in the illusion of freedom much like how farmers plant crops a bit farther from each other to increase productivity. A farmer might provide a cow a service like antibiotics or a bug bath but that doesn't mean the cow isn't considered property.

None of this would have happened without a large, unified government because small, isolated tribes would have neither the resources nor the communication necessary to accomplish it.

Untrue. I won't get into details on why I believe this and I ask that you accept that I feel this way. I see what you mean. Does illusion surround you?

I ask you to observe the world around you over the years to come to learn more, how the state interferes and manipulates much of the food market against you as a consumer and instead they create more towards a corporatist system that services the elite. Really, you just spouted the conditioning and defended it as a personal attack.. I'm not attacking you. But I guess I am stating an opposing opinion, which is easily interpreted as such.

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2010, 07:11.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:58 Jerykk
 
Um... Sure it does stem from the government itself. Of course they don't follow their own rules. The elevate themselves to god status in their minds, consciously or subconsciously. They systematically break their own rules. That's tyranny. When they break their own rules, there are no rules and they use violent force (shown in the video) at their whim.

You're using a few individuals to represent an entire government. That's a pretty broad generalization. There are always people who don't follow the rules. That doesn't mean the rules are inherently flawed nor does it mean the government is corrupt. It just means that some people let their emotions override their duty or they simply don't know the rules because they are ignorant. It's usually a combination of both.

Under tyranny, courts are used as a system of control.

Given that the purpose of law is to maintain control, it should be expected that courts exist for the same reason, tyranny or not.

There are many forms of tyranny. Some will allow Internet access and YT, some won't. I think you are talking about absolute tyranny. I'm using it in a more broad sense perhaps.

I think you're using it in a very exaggerated sense. It's like if a waiter spits in your food and then you accuse the entire restaurant industry of being inherently corrupt. That would be silly, right? You can't call a government tyrannical based solely on the relatively few incidents where government workers didn't do their job properly. Such cases are in the vast minority compared to those where people do their job correctly.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:48 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 06:38:
Ten minutes in you'll see organized people can expose and not comply with tyranny from government.

That's a bit misleading. The issue in that particular case doesn't stem from the government itself. It's caused by government employees not following the laws set forth by the government.

Um... Sure it does stem from the government itself. Of course they don't follow their own rules. The elevate themselves to god status in their minds, consciously or subconsciously. They systematically break their own rules. That's tyranny. When they break their own rules, there are no rules and they use violent force (shown in the video) at their whim.

In a tyrannical government, there is no court.

Sure there are. It's a rigged court, mostly for show and propaganda. Under tyranny, courts are used as a system of control.

In a tyrannical government, all those people defending the victim would either be imprisoned or killed for their dissent. That video would not exist because the government would ban it. More likely, they would just ban Youtube. Maybe even ban all internet access completely.

There are many forms of tyranny. Some will allow Internet access and YT, some won't. I think you are talking about absolute tyranny. I'm using it in a more broad sense perhaps.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:38 Jerykk
 
Ten minutes in you'll see organized people can expose and not comply with tyranny from government.

That's a bit misleading. The issue in that particular case doesn't stem from the government itself. It's caused by government employees not following the laws set forth by the government.

In a tyrannical government, there is no court. You can't use the law to defend yourself because the laws are designed to defend the government, not its people. In a tyrannical government, all those people defending the victim would either be imprisoned or killed for their dissent. That video would not exist because the government would ban it. More likely, they would just ban Youtube. Maybe even ban all internet access completely.

So each of us is going to have to start to take responsibility for what is going on around us. We need to stand up for human dignity. I'm not saying it's easy. It can be done.

It can't be done because it would require that everyone share the same principles and ideals as you. That will never happen. The very nature of individuality means conflicting opinions are inevitable. There will always be people who rely on fear and violence to assert control over others. Your respect for human dignity and liberation won't mean anything to them.

Most of the rest of what you said in that last post sounded like the mental conditioning we've all received from the media and educational institutions as well as rationalization and justification more than real substance. Sorry..

The fact that you think that government has no benefits whatsoever seems like completely irrational conditioning. It is completely bereft of logic and reason. Do you think you'd be able to post on this website were it not for the government? The government created the internet. The government created and supports the backbone of the internet. None of this would have happened without a large, unified government because small, isolated tribes would have neither the resources nor the communication necessary to accomplish it.

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2010, 06:48.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:27 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 06:17:
True, a country without government can't invade another country. However, how many countries without governments even exist? If we're speaking purely hypothetically then yeah, your idea would work. But in reality, all the major countries have governments and all these governments have militaries. Any country without a government has already been taken over by a country with one.

So each of us is going to have to start to take responsibility for what is going on around us. We need to stand up for human dignity. I'm not saying it's easy. It can be done. Human enlightenment and liberation are not guaranteed.

Most of the rest of what you said in that last post sounded like the mental conditioning we've all received from the media and educational institutions as well as rationalization and justification more than real substance. Sorry..

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:17 Jerykk
 
A country with no government can't invade another country and kill thousands or millions of people abroad for whatever reason. This goes for 1930's-40's Germany too. So when you use them as an example in how they occupied other countries nearby, I'll use them as an example of a government invading and killing thousands or millions of people. In my view, you proved my point.

True, a country without government can't invade another country. However, how many countries without governments even exist? If we're speaking purely hypothetically then yeah, your idea would work. But in reality, all the major countries have governments and all these governments have militaries. Any country without a government has already been taken over by a country with one.

Yes, governments have issues. They tend to get bloated and inefficient over time and things like personal freedom and critical-thinking are usually de-emphasized. That said, governments provide benefits as well. You don't have to worry about other tribes invading your territory and killing you (unless you live in an area where the government has little influence). You generally don't have to worry about whether or not the food you're eating will kill you. Governments also enable a communication infrastructure that would otherwise be impossible to achieve with disparate groups of tribes.

The grass is always greener on the other side and while we may sometimes long for the freedom afforded by the lack of government, there's no doubt that we would miss the safety and order of government once we were free of it.

There was at least one resistance movement that I know of (French) within their empire and they made a difference and helped us defeat the Nazis. They did help free themselves.

Helped, sure. But that help wouldn't have been enough without the Soviet and U.S. military efforts.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:09 LittleMe
 
Jerykk check this out.. Ten minutes in you'll see organized people can expose and not comply with tyranny from government. First several minutes are sort of painful though. Whew.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 06:02 LittleMe
 
Jerykk wrote on Dec 27, 2010, 05:52:
Not really understanding what you're trying to establish here.

A country with no government can't invade another country and kill thousands or millions of people abroad for whatever reason. This goes for 1930's-40's Germany too. So when you use them as an example in how they occupied other countries nearby, I'll use them as an example of a government invading and killing thousands or millions of people. In my view, you proved my point.

How many occupied countries freed themselves during WW2?

There was at least one resistance movement that I know of (French) within their empire and they made a difference and helped us defeat the Nazis. They did help free themselves.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: PCGA Interview Dec 27, 2010, 05:52 Jerykk
 
They had governments and tribes and they DID resist. What are you smoking? They fought, maimed and killed us whites for hundreds of years. Yet the real reasons they were defeated you omitted. Reason one: germs/disease killed uncounted millions. Reason two: technological inferiority. Don't forget that it took all of three hundred+ years and still they weren't completely destroyed. They live on today, albeit they are displaced and oppressed.

Even without the disease brought by the colonists, do you really think the Native Americans stood a chance? Like you said, they had inferior technology and inferior numbers. Defeat was inevitable. Was every single Native American destroyed? No, just the vast majority. Now they live on a few, small reservations, largely isolated from the rest of American society. And that's only because the government allows it. If the government decided to finish what they started all those years ago, they would have no problems doing so.

So to take your example, why didn't Germany take responsibility for their actions and stop the Nazi's and abolish their government? If they were sane enough, they could have done it. I'm turning your argument around intentionally in hopes you'll see that it goes both ways.

Not really understanding what you're trying to establish here. The vast majority of Germans approved of the Nazi party and the war effort. They had no reason to oppose the government. Even if they wanted to, there's not much they could have done. The government controls the military and the military has all the guns, tanks and planes. When was the last time a military dictatorship was overthrown by its own people? How many occupied countries freed themselves during WW2?

As a general rule, people don't like to be injured, tortured or killed. This sense of self-preservation overrides all other principles and ideals, which is why people accept things they disagree with. Fear is the most powerful emotion and the threat of violence is the easiest way to instill fear.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo