Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Matt
  • Member Since Mar 26th, 2010

Are you Matt? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
WoW131 Comments

Recent Comments:

Why is Blizzard still OK with gender inequality in World of Warcraft? {WoW}

Apr 3rd 2012 7:10PM I wish I could upvote this into the very first post position, so that it smacks folks in the face before they have to wade through 10 pages of snark and bickering. It's an intelligent, comprehensive, and well thought out position, and in my opinion the most rational take on the subject so far! Well played, indeed!

Cross-realm raiding resource guide {WoW}

Feb 20th 2012 5:08PM the OpenRAID US domain is for sale, and Crossraid seems to be broken. LFR seems to be working though, in addition to the Twitter thingamajob. These have all been vetted, yes?

The Care and Feeding of Warriors: Considering the Mists talent calculator {WoW}

Feb 19th 2012 3:03AM If you're talking about the second picture...the one after the MoP talent calculator picture...it's Ashkandi, The Sword to End All Swords...and Rossi's own personal hard-on boomstick. His most favorite ever.

Activision Blizzard investor call live blog {WoW}

Feb 9th 2012 4:20PM I would think it unlikely. You would have to be a shareholder to be able to contribute input in such a meeting, and even if you were it's most likely ATVI would have sent out proxy cards well in advance to existing shareholders in order to enable them to be able to vote on important issues even if they weren't physically able to make it to the meeting.

Official Monopoly: World of Warcraft game to be unveiled next week {WoW}

Feb 8th 2012 10:24PM I'll be the booterang!

Scattered Shots: Frostheim's interview with an imaginary Ghostcrawler {WoW}

Feb 2nd 2012 10:33PM a feral druid's. naturally.

What makes a bad word bad? {WoW}

Feb 1st 2012 3:14PM i disagree, for the most part.

bad words do exist. they exist because they have meaning. they exist because of historical precedent. their use and associations drive their meaning; their meaning derives from their use. their meaning and society's beliefs are intertwined. the entire thing is circular and inter-related. that's like saying, "this duck is only a duck because people say it's a duck". ok...but the reality is that it's still a duck, just as words are still offensive. just as you readily admit in your analogy...the words are still bad. they exist..there is such thing as a bad word. they're bad because they draw negative associations and inferences, carry hurtful implications, the whole nine yards.

let me be clear from the outset: i curse as colloquially as the next guy, but i also objectively recognize and respect the power of words and language, and adjust my behavior with respect to my surroundings and company. it's not always so much as what's said as what they mean.

of course people have a right to not be offended! by your line of reasoning, it's ok if you call an african american a n**g*r...whether or not they are offended is their problem, regardless of the centuries of hate, bigotry, violence, and ignorance behind that word that you threw at them in half an instant. the only reason you would use a word like that in modern usage would be to cause someone harm; to imply they are beneath you; to imply they are less of a person. as anne said in the article above: to make a power play. a cruel and hateful power play to show your self-created superiority. but all that's ok...because being offended is their choice. you, as the speaker, should be absolved of responsibility for your actions.

likewise, when you call a woman a bitch, or a whore, or a slut. whether or not you mean it literally, the intent is to harm. even if they take it and own it, even if you're using it colloquially, the intent is to associate the person you are speaking to with an image of a man or woman that historically is an object of shame and ridicule because they sell their bodies for money or drugs. this person, you are saying, has so little worth or value that they are like those that take the most sacred thing, "the self", and debase it to the extreme; make it worth whatever the next john is willing to pay or give, degrading themselves and humiliating themselves voluntarily. but that's ok...because being offended is in the hands of the abused, not the abuser. same goes for fa*g*t, k*ke, or any other bad word.

whether you purposefully intend such an implication is immaterial: the word still means what it means regardless of your choice to "assign [it] power", and your line of reasoning absolutely ignores reality. of course a lot can be said for context, but i'm going to ignore colloquial use as an anomaly for the purposes of this discussion. my beef is with people who justify deliberate, non-colloquial use of bad language.

this is my problem with people that try to justify cruel, ignorant, and careless speech: they simply shift the burden to the listener and cover themselves with the, "i can say what i want and if you don't like it it's your problem" shield. but in doing so they fail to recognize that communication is a two way street: blathering idiots that try to justify their slurs and slander think that they're talking to robots who have no right to react...it's unrealistic, short-sighted, ignorant, and small-minded. it's a way to psychologically distance themselves from the hurt they cause other people via an implied dehumanization.

i don't care if you identify yourself as a bitchy, cocky, smart mouthed New Yorker who curses like a sailor and are proud of it; nor do i care if you ID yourself as a down home redneck who also curses like a sailor; nor do i care that George Carlin did it, may he rest in hilarious peace; nor do i care for any other shallow justifications anyone hopes to offer, like any argument along the lines of, "well you could call someone a pumpkin and it would be hurtful because he has a rare genetic disorder that makes his skin orange and his head round! is pumpkin a bad word, then?" reductio ad absurdum arguments such as those try to side step the point: bad words are bad because of intent and history, and you cannot ignore either under the umbrella of, "i can say what i want and it's your fault if you're offended".

sorry for the wall of text...but this self-centered attitude really riles me up.

TL; DR: words have power, and like anything with power it should be respected and taken seriously, especially in light of its potential for abuse. be realistic about language's complexity and its effect on others, and give the people standing in your midst the courtesy and respect they deserve.

The Queue: DMF {WoW}

Jan 28th 2012 12:53PM Great question...I've def been curious about this too. I know that you can trace the Path, more or less, from the Northend south coast, north to wyrmrest temple, up through crystalsong and the mountains to the Ulduar complex. I could only imagine that it led south to un'goro when the continent was whole before the sundering. we know that un'goro, like sholazar, was an experimental greenhouse of sorts. we also known that Uldum and the Titans' re-origination machine is at the far opposite end of the world - seems like perhaps the Path was a Titan north/south freeway? begs the question though why we haven't found ruins of a similar Path going from east to west, especially given some of the Titan ruins the Dwarves' have uncovered in the Badlands.

Blue Posts and Other WoW News: Intellect plate, MoP talents, more Ulduar style bosses, /brofist {WoW}

Jan 27th 2012 7:41AM I disagree.

1. I'm no more in favor of blanket application of my rule than I am of Zarhym's. Note I used the modifier "most", implying that I'll concede the point that my rule (that most countries' names precede the self-identification of their people) may not apply in all cases. I acknowledge not only your own point, but also byronius'. There are exceptions; however, I offer not only my own examples but add the Irish and Chinese to the list of places that named their people and not vice versa. I could go on, just as I'm sure you could find exceptions (France, England, Greece, what-have-you). I merely brought it up to counter-point Zarhym's smug implication that Pandaren named Pandaria after themselves, just like everyone does in real life!

2. The Pandaren were created by Samwise without serious intentions (a joke!), and certainly without intentions of being put in game, plain and simple. Also, I'm pretty sure I remember him pointing out that he drew them up for the benefit of his kids. The fact that they are a race at all is an unintended fluke. This is not to say that they weren't imaginative, etc. The two points are distinct. You ask what I would expect when they put out an "Eastern themed expansion"? I would expect that you don't put the cart before the horse - the expansion was built around the Pandaren, who predate the concepts for their homeland and this expansion at all. It wasn't as if, according to your line of reasoning, the devs created the "Eastern themed expansion" and THEN decided, "hey, what's identifiable with the East? Pandas? Right...go with it!"

3. The fact that they're modeled after pandas...a real animal...and we're even having this chicken and the egg discussion about their homeland is a point in favor of unoriginality. I would concede that, like the Tauren, the Pandaren THEMSELVES aren't necessarily unoriginal...however that's not the argument. The original argument was whether or not it's justified to call it ORIGINAL when you named the Pandaren homeland Pandaria, which it isn't.

4. Lastly, and arguably most importantly, where once in my post did I articulate the rage at MoP you allude to? Where did I say I ever thought the title of the expansion was stupid? "Mists of Pandaria" is an interesting, engaging title when taken at face value, imho. It invokes a certain sense of "mist"ery. (If you'll indulge me on that) The scope of my argument was narrow: I just think Zarhym's argument in his post was flimsy, illogical, and incapable of withstanding scrutiny, and that naming Pandaria Pandaria just for the sake of the Pandaren is unoriginal. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that I held a grudge against the mechanics of the game, or the upcoming expansion. In fact, I think it will be pretty interesting and enjoyable, and would never think to presume to tell the devs how to do their job. You assume too much, and your reaction is knee-jerk.

TL:DR - I still think Zarhym made a poor argument, and MoP, logical inconsistencies notwithstanding, looks to be fun.

Blue Posts and Other WoW News: Intellect plate, MoP talents, more Ulduar style bosses, /brofist {WoW}

Jan 26th 2012 10:43PM i'm sorry, i don't know you, and i don't mean to be cruel...but zarhym's logic in addressing that poster's complaint was bass-ackward, as is yours: it is in fact pretty unoriginal to name the continent after the things that inhabit it. that poster had him dead to rights.

zarhym's attempt to analogize the Pandaren/Pandaria question to real world nationalities was a logical failure: most countries' names pre-date the self-identification of their citizens. America isn't called America because the English, French, Dutch, and other European settlers who called it their home identified themselves as American. They identified themselves as American because the land was named after Amerigo Vespucci - the land's name came first, the people's identity came afterwards. Neither is Australia called Australia because the English criminals deported there in the 19th century collective voted to call themselves "Australians" on the boat ride over. Etc, etc...world without end, amen.

the inverse is true with Pandaria - the Pandaren originated as a joke, cobbled together from an idealized Eastern hero (the drunken master, which in turn is a modern cinematic interpretation of the zui quan style of fighting [see 70s kung fu movies]) and a real animal. the continent came as an afterthought....and as such is unoriginal. it would have been better for zarhym to just say, "a wizard did it" than to attempt to explain it away using a real world comparison - in the latter, the logical doesn't follow...at least you can't argue with the former.