# Skald the Rhymer is annoying **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 8, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631 "2012-07-08T21:22:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/161 "2018-05-19T21:29:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > **Thanks for admitting I had a point.** I’ve pointed this out several times, and I will continue to do so: when you are dismissive rather than refuting a point, you are admitting that you can’t provide a counterargument. > . No, it’s that you’re such a valueless little fuck that it’s not worth the time to dignify your drivel with actual conversation as opposed to a verbal smacking. Shut up, BigTard ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/162 "2018-05-19T21:40:10Z")
That’s not very nice **Fenris**. It is permissible within the rules of this message board, IMHO only. Just. > [@Helena330](#): > > You completely miss the point. There’s always a variation of women being lesbians/porn actresses/abused/etc. in these “fun” hypotheticals. Some people have just had enough. Ok. I haven’t read enough of his hypotheticals to evaluate this. > [@](#): > > I challenge **Skald** to write hypotheticals without the sex of any of the participants being germane. If these are truly “just for fun” that shouldn’t be a problem, and it shouldn’t be if these are moral/ethical quandaries, either. Eliminating sex as being relevant would actually crystallize the argument. 1. These hypotheticals are have a fictional aspect. Lots of fiction includes gender relationships. 2. The field of philosophy has plenty of moral quandaries involving trains, switches and other inanimate objects. Puzzles involving messy interpersonal relationships are rarer. The detail Skald puts into his scenarios gives them a certain realism, in contrast with philosophical scenarios which try to focus on one and only one thing at a time. 1. I dunno, I looking at the first dozen replies or so, none of them are particularly lascivious. So the allegation of sexism seems off base to this SWM. Not saying it isn’t there at all. Am saying it’s appropriate. * * * I agree that Skald’s hypotheticals are somewhat annoying. (That’s why I skip over most of them - but not all!) But that’s because the mind sometimes reacts with annoyance to complicated moral quandries with competing considerations. I suspect that many readers then glom on to the sexualized background Skald puts into his stories. But they really aren’t that sexual, taken on their own. And the degree of attraction among the potential partners is surely a relevant component. To pretend it’s not seems unrealistic. ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/163 "2018-05-19T21:48:30Z")
> [@nachtmusick](#): > > Yes; yes they are. To you and other Skald fans, but not to everyone. > [@BigT](#): > > No, the issue was the one brought up by the person who I was responding to. > > Your issue is something different. Problem is, it’s one based entirely on a falsehood. If you’d actually been reading Skald’s thread before the one thread you freaked the fuck out over, you’d know that **Skald regularly does not include the sex of the people involved.** He intentionally uses unisex names. > > The problem here is that you guys hold grudges. Once you get an idea of who a person is in your head, you don’t ever check to see if you are wrong. It’s why it’s so common to bring up shit from years and years ago as if it’s relevant today. > > You guys saw one thread where he did somewhat reference a sexual thing. And then you guys flipped out and pretended like that’s what all his threads had been about, because of confirmation bias. You ignore all the other threads, including the one just before that one. Because those threads didn’t align with your beliefs. > > Now that you have been informed, you have a choice. You can take my word for it. You can go and look up Skald’s threads. Or you can continue with your falsehoods, and then it becomes lying to attack someone you don’t like. > > And I will respond to the latter as a “white knight” as you guys call it, as I will defend anyone against bullies, but especially a guy who went blind and is still trying to make interesting content for us. He can’t as easily defend himself, so I will step up for him. > > Plus, well, the fact that you guys didn’t have the guts to Pit him (or rez a pit thread) when the thing you were upset about was actually happening, and are now hijacking a thread that brought up a completely different topic, of Skald being “annoying,” not your pet theory that he’s some sort of sexual deviant misogynist. > > So, to put that in simple terms for people who skim my shit: LEAVE. SKALD. ALONE. Stop making up shit about him. I’ve always disliked this threads. The creepy “sexual thing” just lowers my opinion some more. > [@BigT](#): > > For those of us who participate in them, yes, obviously. Or we would not participate in them. > > If they aren’t fun for you, then, yes, the solution is simply to not read them. Not to bully a blind man. If voicing my dislike of his threads is “bullying,” then I guess I’m being bullied when others disagree with me, too. :dubious: For the most part, I do skip his threads. I guess it would be more accurate to say I always skip them. My problem, and it is a minor issue I admit, is that he makes interesting titles for his threads (not always but sometimes) and doesn’t mark them as a hypothetical. IMO they should be marked as a hypothetical because otherwise they sometimes look like they could be a post about an actual occurrence. Now I know to check for the “Skald” so I can skip it. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/164 "2018-05-19T21:49:34Z")
Do I have to be outraged if I’ve never read any of his hypotheticals because they just don’t interest me? (I hate hypotheticals, real life is difficult enough.) If so, please direct me where to pick up my pitchfork and blazing torch. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/165 "2018-05-19T22:00:12Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Do I have to be outraged if I’ve never read any of his hypotheticals because they just don’t interest me? (I hate hypotheticals, real life is difficult enough.) This. Hypotheticals are an acquired taste. Most don’t like them, because they are designed to create moral _uncertainty_, which the mind is averse to. (Among all mammals. If you shock rats repeatedly, they zone out. But if you shock them randomnly -creating uncertainty- they get severely stressed. Uncertainty is worse than greater and guaranteed pain.) Not saying I’m different, btw. I have to be in the proper mood to read about [trains and switches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/166 "2018-05-19T22:22:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This. > > Hypotheticals are an acquired taste. Most don’t like them, because they are designed to create moral _uncertainty_, which the mind is averse to. > > (Among all mammals. If you shock rats repeatedly, they zone out. But if you shock them randomnly -creating uncertainty- they get severely stressed. Uncertainty is worse than greater and guaranteed pain.) > > Not saying I’m different, btw. I have to be in the proper mood to read about [trains and switches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). I like hypotheticals when there’s a point to them. Ethical philosophy is one of my interests, and hypotheticals are a good way of getting at deep issues in ethical philosophy without the decision turning on obscure points of procedure or minutiae which have no relevance outside that one specific case, as often happens in real court cases. So we create hypotheticals so we can illustrate points about the ethics of applying principles to cases, without those cases slipping away from us and becoming useless. That usefulness is why hypotheticals are allowed to get away with talking about horrible things. Horrible things are uncomfortable to talk about, and you cannot test principles unless you’re uncomfortable. It’s easy to be a deontologist if you never have a Jew in the attic, and it’s easy to be a utilitarian if you live in a world without trolleys. Therefore, positing hypotheticals with uncomfortable themes without any purpose is creepy. The thing which made it un-creepy is gone, so creepy it is, and creepy it remains. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/167 "2018-05-19T22:50:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > For those of us who participate in them, yes, obviously. Or we would not participate in them. > > If they aren’t fun for you, then, yes, the solution is simply to not read them. Not to bully a blind man. You know what, **BigToddler**? I have fucking HAD it with this attitude of your’s, that if someone has some kind of ailment, or disability, somehow they’re untouchable, and don’t have to follow the rules. Get this through your fucking thick head, for once and for all: having a disability is NOT license to be a dick. Quit this whole, “waaah, I’m ill! Waaah, you can’t pick on them, they have blah blah blah.” Fuck that shit, fuck ALL OVER THAT SHIT. I have my own ailments, but I don’t want special treatment. Just because YOU do (and too damned bad, life ain’t fair, kiddo), doesn’t mean anyone else does. Most people don’t, because they’re not big spoiled babies. It’s patronizing, condescending, and disrespectful. (And if your condition is so severe that you cannot be in control of your actions, then perhaps you shouldn’t BE on the internet unsupervised, got it? It’s unfortunate, but once again, life isn’t fair. The sooner you realize it, the better off you’ll be.) If you can’t handle it, get the fuck out. \*Quite frankly, I have some doubts about the blind thing. There are certain things that don’t ring true, or sound…off. Or else it’s exaggerated. I don’t care, it’s just a message board. But true or not, it’s not an excuse for being Creepy McCreeperson. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/168 "2018-05-19T22:58:16Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Therefore, positing hypotheticals with uncomfortable themes without any purpose is creepy. The thing which made it un-creepy is gone, so creepy it is, and creepy it remains. Yeah, I used to read them even if I didn’t usually vote. But they’ve just deteriorated into awfulness, and I no longer read them. I did go read the current one, and I think it’s pretty creepy so just avoid them. His threads aren’t my cup of tea, but I have no problem if he keeps posting them. But I also have no problem if folks let him know that they’re creepy as heck. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/169 "2018-05-19T23:05:53Z")
It’s been a long time since I last made a post on the SDMB. It’s been even longer since I was a regular. Back in the day, **BigT** seemed like an OK dude. Occasionally annoying, but fine. I wander back to the Dope every couple months to see what’s new and **BigT** is always in whichever big thread is current. And every time he’s increasingly annoying, sanctimonious, and basically just openly fucking retarded. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/170 "2018-05-19T23:11:58Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I like hypotheticals when there’s a point to them. > > Ethical philosophy is one of my interests, and hypotheticals are a good way of getting at deep issues in ethical philosophy without the decision turning on obscure points of procedure or minutiae which have no relevance outside that one specific case, as often happens in real court cases. So we create hypotheticals so we can illustrate points about the ethics of applying principles to cases, without those cases slipping away from us and becoming useless. > > That usefulness is why hypotheticals are allowed to get away with talking about horrible things. Horrible things are uncomfortable to talk about, and you cannot test principles unless you’re uncomfortable. It’s easy to be a deontologist if you never have a Jew in the attic, and it’s easy to be a utilitarian if you live in a world without trolleys. > > Therefore, positing hypotheticals with uncomfortable themes without any purpose is creepy. The thing which made it un-creepy is gone, so creepy it is, and creepy it remains. Great post Derleth. Nicely argued. I guess I have 2 comments about the last paragraph. 1. It depends what you mean by uncomfortable. There’s something a little bit uncomfortable about the April - May - June story, but methinks it comes from the moral uncertainty rather than anything else. And that sort of discomfort isn’t a bad thing to exercise. I haven’t read any Skald threads dealing with eg rape, so I can’t comment on that. Your argument seems plausible in that instance. I generally believe that fiction or commentary on certain subjects requires a deft touch and correctly requires a deft touch. 1. With a caveat. Horror is a popular genre, though it’s not to most people’s taste. (No, there’s no conflict in that last sentence: there can be huge markets that appeal to only a third of the populace for example.) And lots of horror deals with death and mayhem. I’m reluctant to accuse that fan-base (of which I am not a member) of being creepy. * * * Separately, I _think_ I could defend Skald’s latest contribution on its merits. I honestly don’t think its aspects (sexual attraction, same sex attraction, favoritism, over and under disclosure) are particularly gratuitous. (Though it is, for lack of a better word, gossipy.) Not really my rave fave, but I hypothesize that what bothers people about it (uncertainty) has more than a little to do with fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/171 "2018-05-19T23:18:07Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > **Thanks for admitting I had a point.** I’ve pointed this out several times, and I will continue to do so: when you are dismissive rather than refuting a point, you are admitting that you can’t provide a counterargument. > > I do not know why you guys think this in any way contributes to anything. I’m literally never told to shut up any other place, real life or online. Because most people get that telling someone to shut up just makes them look like a child who doesn’t want to hear the truth. > > Well, then again, you think the way to deal with trolls is by responding to them and allowing them to clog up threads, and thought that California could actually break off and become a separate country. You’re not too bright. Have you figured out why everyone calls you BigTard yet? Would you like help? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/172 "2018-05-19T23:36:58Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > Skald’s threads are fun? Actually, they’re just unbearably tedious–like bad YA lit. I’ve never been able to get through the first paragraph–let alone care enough to vote in the poll. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/173 "2018-05-19T23:48:22Z")
I’d be more interested in **Skald** ’s “hypotheticals” if I had ever seen him contribute substantively to a thread started by anyone other than himself: as it is, he’s clearly only impressed by his own scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![ioioio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ioioio/32/316_2.png) [@ioioio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ioioio)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/174 "2018-05-19T23:57:37Z")
I’d be far less annoyed if STR was upfront about his posts being fictional. He readily admits they are once someone brings it up, but most people who invested in the story up till then will feel some anger at being played. Now that I’m aware of his “creativity”, I simply don’t read his posts. Also, it’s always in my mind that he was probably whacking off while writing these things. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/175 "2018-05-20T00:40:36Z")
> [@ioioio](#): > > I’d be far less annoyed if STR was upfront about his posts being fictional. He readily admits they are once someone brings it up, but most people who invested in the story up till then will feel some anger at being played. Now that I’m aware of his “creativity”, I simply don’t read his posts. > > Also, it’s always in my mind that he was probably whacking off while writing these things. What the hell? You really thought his tales were real? I’m no defender of Skald, but that makes you seem really stupid. That’s on you, not Skald. Half his stories involve zombies or superheroes, for heavens sake. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/176 "2018-05-20T00:44:15Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I guess I have 2 comments about the last paragraph. > > 1. It depends what you mean by uncomfortable. There’s something a little bit uncomfortable about the April - May - June story, but methinks it comes from the moral uncertainty rather than anything else. And that sort of discomfort isn’t a bad thing to exercise. Nah, the creepiness stems from him gratuitously making all the three women hot and emphasizing this fact in conjunction with their lesbianism. Not that there is anything wrong with having characters be attractive but if there’s no relevance to the plot, then that kind of emphasis indicates an undisciplined imagination might be competing with his storytelling skills. I rarely read his hypotheticals because they come across as soap opera-ish and unrealistic. I could see debating them if they were actually real or highlighted an interesting philosophical conundrum, but unfortunately, I find them to too contrived to care about. All in all, though, I don’t see him as a creepy poster. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/177 "2018-05-20T00:45:44Z")
I’ve read his hypotheticals for years, off and on. This pattern people are seeing of creepiness? I haven’t seen it. Anyone want to show that the pattern actually exists, and isn’t just a bunch of snarking about him for reasons? If it exists (now, not a decade ago), then it seems appropriate to call him out for it **when he’s engaging in the pattern** , and not when he’s not. Writing a story about a bunch of lesbians isn’t especially creepy IMO: there’s nothing salacious about the latest hypothetical. Edit: okay, he says they’re all “cute (very),” and mentions a “drunken late-night kiss”. On a creepometer of 1-10, that’s maybe a 1. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/178 "2018-05-20T00:56:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’ve read his hypotheticals for years, off and on. This pattern people are seeing of creepiness? I haven’t seen it. Anyone want to show that the pattern actually exists, and isn’t just a bunch of snarking about him for reasons? > > If it exists (now, not a decade ago), then it seems appropriate to call him out for it **when he’s engaging in the pattern** , and not when he’s not. Writing a story about a bunch of lesbians isn’t especially creepy IMO: there’s nothing salacious about the latest hypothetical. Edit: okay, he says they’re all “cute (very),” and mentions a “drunken late-night kiss”. On a creepometer of 1-10, that’s maybe a 1. I feel the same. I haven’t seen the creepiness. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but I just haven’t seen it. I also haven’t seen any good reason to suspect he’s lying about his vision impairment – only vague supposed coincidences that could be explained by quirks of impaired-vision software, minor mistakes, or a million other things. And I’ll endorse calling out any creepiness. I don’t have any problem with anyone criticizing **Skald** , or anyone really, for a post that they find creepy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/179 "2018-05-20T00:59:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > II also haven’t seen any good reason to suspect he’s lying about his vision impairment – only vague supposed coincidences that could be explained by quirks of impaired-vision software, minor mistakes, or a million other things. Yeah, this. The lowlifes who obsess over his posts trying to find something that they can interpret as proof that he’s not blind would be profoundly pitiable if they were not so contemptible. I have no time for this. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631/180 "2018-05-20T01:01:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 1. With a caveat. Horror is a popular genre, though it’s not to most people’s taste. (No, there’s no conflict in that last sentence: there can be huge markets that appeal to only a third of the populace for example.) And lots of horror deals with death and mayhem. I’m reluctant to accuse that fan-base (of which I am not a member) of being creepy. It’s the difference between “doing to” and “doing with”, with all the questions of responsibility that entails. _Spec Ops: The Line_ is a video game about war, where you, the player, take the role of a special forces operative trying to achieve military objectives by destroying a Kurtz-like commander of the 33rd Infantry Battalion of the US Army, who deserted with his men to save a sandstorm-stricken Dubai and, finding himself completely cut off from the world, became a dictator and started killing his opposition. Anyway, there’s a scene in the game where your group is trying to assault a location held by the 33rd and finds too much opposition to make headway. The only way to achieve the objective is to call in an airstrike which will use white phosphorus on the enemy. When you do this, you move forwards and find that the white phosphorus also killed a number of civilians. And That’s Terrible, as per the game. Needless to say, _Spec Ops: The Line_ got people talking. It spawned at least one parody game, which didn’t parody the military shooter genre but, instead, took aim at the “do this thing to win YOU MONSTER” storytelling it employed: “Click the dot to win the game THE DOT WAS A PUPPY AND YOU BASHED ITS BRAINS IN YOU MONSTER” or similar, just completely taking the piss out of the whole concept. This reveals a certain… tension with games that make you complicit in Bad Things, and then tie those Bad Things in the game to terrible atrocities committed in the real world.\* People don’t like when you trick them into doing that, as it turns out. The makers of _Spec Ops: The Line_ have a good argument for doing what they did, however: You can’t _not_ participate in politics. As a great philosopher once wrote, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”, and that definitely applies to voting. So their game poses a very pertinent question, in its own fashion, and is something anyone who exists in any country needs to consider at some level. The hypotheticals in the ethics class I took (none of which were anywhere near as squicky as some I’ve heard) have the same justification, as I’ve said. Has **Skald** ever claimed his hypotheticals were commentaries or meant to educate? Has he ever done so successfully? \*(The alternative is the gleefully pointless violence of the entire _Grand Theft Auto_ series, which, while it engages in adolescent satire of modern American pop culture, has nothing to say about deep social issues, never pretends to, and simply exists as a vehicle for well-rendered 3D violence.) Novels are doing to, in that the novelist makes all the decisions and the reader is along for the ride. There’s no way for a novelist to fob off responsibility on anyone else, no way for them to credibly say “this happened YOU MONSTER” because they’re the only ones who made it happen. So in making those hypotheticals, **Skald** comes off as someone who wants to put those very specific fantasies out there for the world to see in a way that absolves him of some responsibility. His blindness shtick is part of it as well: Regardless of whether he is blind, he doesn’t have to make it known, and certainly doesn’t have to post about it to the extent he has, but the fact it _is_ known garners him defenders and gives him something to retreat into to reduce culpability. And That’s Creepy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skald-the-rhymer-is-annoying/627631.md?page=10)