Be Excellent To Each Other

I think it is OK to have opinions on the country you are from without residing in. That's the position I am in!

But! Building a career on sticking up for that country, when you have voluntarily moved away from it years ago, is a little misguided.

Then throwing around unfounded accusations that others have abandoned that same country, when they still live there, is foolish.

Even if you wanted to do all these things, they are possible to do without being a massive arsehole about it.

I just sneaked a peak at his feed. He's still at it. At which point should we start getting concerned about his mental state?

*Stealth Mountains you*

Implying someone has mental health issues because they are constantly angry and horrible is not cool, imo.

I read Kern's post as being about the physiological toll of constant anger and stress rather than psychological problems.

Ah, ok.

-edit- I think 'health' would have been better than 'mental state', personally.

Apparently Stu's made the leading article in today's Times!

Here:

Apparently this is now all a conspiracy by JK Rowling to increase sales for her new book.

I mean, that's fucking clever isn't it? Saying 'Well done Scotland' on twitter was QUITE the shrewd opening play in this comical PR stunt.

Let's not make any bones about it. This cunt is slated to die young. Propensity for continuous rage and anger, sits at a computer 18 hours a day eating crisps, sweets and venting bile? Casual gambler? Scottish to boot? I give him 5 years before a coronary.

Either way, I don't think at all: at least not on the basis of this latest bout of anger. He is publicity hungry, like anyone who has not only taken on a cause but actually made it their livelihood to push it: this is only going to up his profile, get more people looking, dev=bating with him: increasing his circle of influence. He will feed off of this for a long time and will be loving it, so of course he is still going on about it because it makes sense to milk it for every drop of ire that he can.

I don't mean to suggest that he doesn't believe in his cause, not at all, but direct dialogue with a noted person getting picked up by the media is pretty much an internet 'persona's dream, and as there can sometimes be trolling behaviour from that account once he has found a drum to bang on that gets people listening, he'll naturally keep banging it for as long as they have ears.

I’m against the growing medicalisation of people just being twats, but I think in this case it’s not about him being a shouty angry person, it’s the level of utter self-delusion that appears to go along with it – the fact someone can see themselves as the victim in that exchange requires a level of narcissism, paranoia and delusion that really does make one wonder if there’s something more to it than just being a twat.

Perhaps, just the casual diagnosis of mental illness is unhelpful and further stigmatises those people who manage to live with mental health issues and not be massive angry twats or serial killers etc.

Also as far as I'm aware Kern is not a mental health professional! Sorry to single you out here chap, it's nothing personal - just a bugbear of mine.

Fair enough, although, without wishgn to speak for Kern, I don't think any harm was meant by it.

I wouldn't think for a second that he did.

No offence taken. I'm more concerned about my increasing use of homophones in my postings here.

I think there are several furlongs between what Kern said and a diagnosis of ill mental health.

I respectfully disagree. He may not have meant it, but the words are there in black and blue-grey.

This SJW word-policing bollocks is off topic. Now get back to talking about this mental cunt.

Four hours.

I totally agree. His only mission in life in all the years I have known of him have been fame. Stu is a bit of a chameleon in that regard. Any time he can find some sort of cause to attach himself to and become the speaker for he will. At first it was about the price of video games. No one else was speaking up so Stu took it upon himself to lower the price of games here in the UK. He took to magazines, newspapers and then the TV, IIRC.

Once that had all died down and he felt he was successful he moved on to cheating fruit machines. However, it was the way he did that that still upsets and angers me to this day. Back then two guys were coding an emulator for nothing but casual use and reliving memories. Stu comes along and finds out (how he didn't know it before is a mystery, what a thick cunt) that fruit machines were mostly pre determined. IE - the game rom itself had already decided if you were going to win or lose before you had pressed the button. And dear lord, the fucking noise he made about it ! Once again he took what wasn't his in the first place (the emulator) and then used it for every wrong reason it was coded for, to attack the gaming industry.

Once again he was in magazines (and boasted about it on his website or by posting clippings etc) in newspapers and on the TV. And all the time this was going on the developers of these emulators begged him not to misuse them for things they weren't designed for. It could have gotten them in a lot of trouble legally. Did he listen? like fuck, it's all about the cause and fuck any one (his own words) that doesn't agree !

He then went on a TV show on BBC3 IIRC and sat and spouted off an unparalleled amount of bullshit. At one point he cracked out a very old computer SIMM (a stick of memory) and waffled on about game storage and so on. It was all so, so cringe worthy.

What did he get? well after all of his noise and fuss the gambling industry merely put a sticker on their machines stating that the outcome of the gamble may be pre determined.

All of that hurt, upset and "fuck you"s for a fucking sticker.

The only thing I have really seen since was him begging for free things to "review". A bean bag is it?

Only now Stu is all grown up and political and stuff and gets to swear at celebrities.

Some one mentioned Narcissism? Stu could give Narcissus a fucking run for his money.

Though I agree with your first point, I would not have for one second have thought that Kern was seriously diagnosing anyone as being mentally ill. I agree about the stigma, and think that your stance is an admirable one if it is the one that you adhere to in all of your interactions, but I think there has to be some leeway accepted among friends (and I think most people here would class themselves thus) on a forum such as this. A forum where there is all kinds of ribbing and talk that is accepted as being light-hearted and without mean intention, where people have in the past repeatedly called each other nasty names and sworn at each other over and over and over again in the strongest of terms for 'fun'. A forum which, after all, has this as one of its emoticons:

If Kern had in any way at any point of the last however many years posting here ever have been mean to anyone or shown himself to have even the smallest mean bone in his body then maybe it'd read different to me.

On another point, though: is there a possibility that a large proportion of one's life spent bullying people (online or off) is a sign that someone may be mentally atypical, I wonder? At what point does that behaviour become so destructive that it is problematic, to the person who is maintaining their nastiness/bullying/trolling in whatever form it may take as well as to the people that it is aimed against. I don't think it is at all applicable in this case because, as before, I think this is all carefully orchestrated to make and generate as much noise as possible, but I knew similar bullies at university and beyond and it did seem to take its toll on the people that lived their lives to make others miserable (often because it lead to loneliness and having nobody care for them).

What is SJW, EBJ? I Googled it but could only find references to schools for deaf people

Coming from some one who does suffer with mental afflictions I can solemnly say that I took no offence to what Kern said.

At the end of the day Stu can make the mentally ill look positively normal.

Me either and I've already said that - it's just careless language and stigmatises those who have MI, despite what Edgelord Banjo String would have you believe. (Seriously, what kind of spunk trumpet uses the term 'SJW' without irony?) Let's try not stereotype those with mental illnesses as apoplectic with rage, or likely to gun schools down in America. Those with mental health issues are more likely to be victims than perpetrators, and many manage to do very important jobs instead of shouting at clouds and eating crisps.

Anyway, it was more of a general comment rather than anything personal towards Kern. I know he is of a good heart.

Me either personally, but a lot of people feel isolated and 'othered' because of it. It doesn't take much to slightly alter your language to be more inclusive.

Please note Resident GamerGate Shitlord, this isn't censorship. You can say what you like. But you can be criticised for it, and I will continue to do so.

I refer to the noble warriors of Sir James Whitney, a long and proud line of knights who stand up for those without ears.

No seriously, SJW is the first google result for urban dictionary. Social Justice Warrior, where the filthy white cis-male shitlords of the world need to the check their privilege and moderate their thoughts and language so as to not offend the delicate sensibilities of self-righteous internet reactionaries that have nothing better to do with their lives than extract strawman offence for things that clearly did not have that intent.

In other words, the above. You might think this a trite stereotyping but christ, have you seen the internet in recent years?

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative used by people who think there's no value in trying to be more inclusive, caring, or polite in their use of language against those who think that does have value. Very similar to "political correctness gone mad."

It's not just language; if you think that anything from games and films to organisations and society in general should be more inclusive and representative then you'll usually be branded an SJW by the type of people who think the term has value. It's been used and popularised by the GamerGate movement (i.e. a pack of miserable, vicious, misogynistic, whiny fucking man-babies) so take from that what you will.

I take no responsibility for any offence taken from my inflammatory statements on the internet. If you say mean things to me I'll be straight off to the UN to press for harsh laws in order to counteract this cyber-violence harassment-mind-rape culture. Why will nobody appreciate my intersectionality?!

I must be a mental too.

Reactionaries don't like having their privilege pointed out, as they see the straight, white, able-bodied man as 'default' in society. When there are calls for diversity it's seen as a zero-sum game. See the #BoycottStarWarsVII hashtag on Twitter as an example. It's all the same wankers who think there's a sooper sekrit SJW cabal taking over world governments and forcing all games developers to have disabled lesbian trans women as the main characters.

Hmm, I hesitate to interject here, but surely it's all about degrees? It can't be on the one hand, say what you damn well like to anyone, no matter how offensive or hurtful it's likely to be just 'deal with it', whilst on the other take offence at pretty much anything, they are obviously extremes.

I think people have a reasonably well calibrated sense of what is, and is not likely to be offensive, and I think most would agree Stu crossed that line here - but not that this is what it's even about of course (he's subverted the whole argument into 'man swears on the internet' etc., but actually it was the content and sentiment of what he said that was contentious, not merely that he used the word 'fuck').

Christ Cavey, why are you dragging this hilarious parody-fest back on topic? I was getting some good laughs here.

But you're right. People be disagreeing. The trouble with Stu is that he strains so hard for credibility and purports all of the 'proper' fact-checking unlike the biased millionaire-loving mainstream media. He might gain some ground in that respect if he wasn't predisposed towards popping his brain cells in incoherent rage at various points that so completely undermine whatever point he was originally going for.

SJW is just something that people shout at me if I am ever considerate towards anyone that is different from myself.

Ha, I had no absolutely no idea this was a thing, because fuck Twitter, and it's jaw-dropping. Some of the quotes in this article are hilarious.

Please note that I am not demanding anyone changes the words they say or type, only that perhaps they consider the language they use and how it affects others. Especially given the forum you are using. What you say in person to a small group of close friends might perhaps be different to what you put on the internet where they may reside forevermore.

Unless you get everything RemovedByRequest, of course.

Turns out it's a chan op (of course), but is being ironically racist really any different to being actually racist? Especially if people from places like Stormfront actually take it and run with it.

If someone calls you an SJW, it basically just means that you're doing being a human correctly.

See also: if someone attempts to use 'liberal' as an insult.

There's a good piece on this from Mr Biffo about that, that could easily be about the Rev as well.

You people remain hilarious, sort of like a nature documentary about people who live in isolation from the real world. Absolutely unable to appreciate the entirely relativistic nature of your own sense of righteousness. Intolerant of intolerance, castigating those who use insults as 'fucking pathetic, whiny' et al without even a hint of irony. It's like a very amusing soap opera, albeit also a bit tedious for longer than 30 minutes at a time.

Good piece; this bit resonated for me:



I'm with Mimi on this - I suspect that Stu is loving the fact that his online antics are now headline news, no such thing as no bad publicity etc.

Hypothetically, suppose someone produced evidence that his type of invective-spewing our-way-or-fuck-you cybernat behaviour was turning off so many moderate voters that he was guaranteeing Scottish independence would never happen. Consider that Nicola Sturgeon has distanced herself from this sort of thing. I wonder what he'd do.

C'mon, that's easy. He'd produce counter evidence from his arse, and when the next referendum is lost it would simply be a conspiracy of the billionaires and media rather than any objective fault of his own behaviour and politics. Indeed, that was pretty much the reasoning last time.

Interesting - I suspect nothing, i.e. he'd carry on regardless, nose in spite of face etc.? Dunno, could well be wrong of course.

I suspect so, but he'd have to go through some serious cognitive dissonance to carry on if the leader of the SNP asked him to tone it down. I think he's capable of it, but it would be entertaining to watch.

Sadly, I suspect 'being Stuart Campbell' would continue to trump absolutely any other aim he had in life and he'd find a way to somehow justify carrying on exactly as he always has. That's even assuming you could get him to actually accept evidence of something he didn't want to believe was true, which I've never seen anyone actually manage.

It's how he makes his living. You can dig out the Upton Sinclair quote yourselves

I prefer to cut to the chase and just call a c*nt a c*nt

I prefer to cut to the chase and just call a cunt a cunt.