ok everyone hated on his sans is ness theory but honestly? honestly? I thought it was a cute theory ok, i thought it was fun, i liked it. i like matpat. support this sentimental nut.
Hey FNAF fans! I’m excited to have some of my fanart featured in the new Game Theory episode. Thank you to the Game Theory team for reaching out to me!
As an artist, this episode was very interesting for me personally as I am very aware of the messy waters within copyright issues and IP laws. Great Video!
I used to be confused about why “Handicap” became offensive, too (as I remember it, the movement to stop using it started picking up steam in the early 1990s). And then, a few years ago, I went on a deep dive into the history of it for part of a book I was working on (My main source for this info was an article in an academic journal I found online that’s now behind a paywall {sigh}).
But this is what I remember. I love it as part of word history, because it says so much about how we perceive things, and how we choose the words we do.
Anyway:
TheFolkHistory of the word says that’s because it comes from the phrase “Cap-in-Hand” – in other words, begging, and gives the suggestion that the only thing disabled people are good for is begging.
Thetruehistory of the word is that it started out associated with sports (Golf, and Horse Racing) and referred to an extra difficulty the stronger competitor had to deal with in order to even up the stakes for the weaker competitors.
Around the turn of the 20th century, it started being applied to children with intellectual impairments, and framing their lives as being burdened by their limitations. It might have started out as neutral at the time, but it quickly morphed first to a term of pity porn, and a derogatory term (The children are burdened by their impairments, and they are, in turn, a burden on Society).
At the end of World War 1, the word “Handicap” began to be applied to all disabilities, especially to the wounded soldiers coming back from the War, and applying for government assistance. And then, the military system spread to the civilian sector, and the way states ran their welfare systems.
And so, by the middle of the 20th century, the word “Handicap” came to be associated with bureaucracy and having to submit to “experts” examining us, to decide how much help we deserve, and how many hoops we have to jump through to get it (some things never change). And so that feelslike begging with “Cap in hand,” even if that isn’t where the word actually comes from.
And then, by the ‘90s, the “Social Model of Disability” began to take hold – that’s the idea that we’re not only disabled by our own impairments, but also by how our society is built (lack of accessible housing, inflexible employment requirements, etc.) and the word “Handicapped” implies that our impairments are burdens we carry for ourselves, and “Disability” doesn’t.
So that’s why the consensus was gradually reached that “Disability” was the better word.
(Sorry this got long; I’m something of a word and history geek)
so what’s the actual etymology of the word “handicap”? Does the “cap” have something to do with capping (as in limiting) the performance of the fastest racehorse or whatever?
Good Question!
It actually goes back to an English betting / swapping / trading game, called “Hand in the Cap,” or “Hand-in-Cap,” first recorded around 1650 (Though the game itself might be older).
And the rules were thus:
Two people who have different items they want to trade (to make this a modernized example, let’s say: I have a 1980s Rubik’s Cube, and you have a paperback edition of Restaurant at the End of the Universe)
But neither of us know if it’s a fair trade.
So we hire an appraiser/umpire.
One of us brings a cap, and puts it on the table.
You, I, and the umpire each put $5 in the cap.
The umpire examines both our stuff and determines that your book is worth $3 dollars more than my Rubik’s Cube.
If we both agree that that’s a fair appraisal, I give you my cube, plus $3. You give me the book. And the umpire gets the $15 in the cap (He puts his “hand in the cap” to pull out the money).
Ifyouthink that’s fair, but Idon’t, we each keep our stuff, and youget the $15 (and vice-versa)
If neither of us thinks it’s fair, we each keep our stuff, and the umpire gets the $15 bucks.
So it looks like there’s a two out of three chance for the umpire (the handicapper, which is still a word, BTW), to get the money. But it would be very hard to deliberately set a price that would be unfair to bothplayers. So the best chances for the umpire to get paid is to try and be as impartial as possible. And it’s in the traders’ interest to err on the side of agreeing to the trade.
(Since learning the rules of this game, I’ve thought it might make an interesting variation on a charity raffle for school or other community fundraiser. It’s no more of a gamble than the more ordinary raffle, and people could get rid of stuff they no longer want)
Over time, “Hand-i’-Cap” came to mean the extra money paid to make an unequal trade equal, and later, came to apply to extra weight in a horse’s saddle, or the extra strokes allowed certain players in golf, to make the odds of the game/race more equal.
For those of you unfamiliar: on @artificial-father I started a series of maps designed to make the viewers uncomfortable. Seeing so many criticisms that, i decided on a more interactive project.
Map of the united states, but it is worth a total of $300, 6 dollars can buy you an entire state of your choice and declare it part of your empire, you can name it whatever you please.
If you cannot afford an entire state, that’s okay I made this map, I can cut divide states up as need be, prices will be adjusted. Therefore, if you wish to edit existing borders you may.
For the sake of fairness you may not purchase land that has already been bought.
—A copy of this map will be retained, and a new game with different rules will proceed with the generated map.
Make sure to check the original post to make sure the state you want is still available
Make sure to message me @dear-future-ai when a purchase is made to ensure quickest updates to the map, and username in the paypal message for easier verification.
Idea: What if the dinosaurs from the Jurassic Park/World movies are supposed to be horribly inaccurate so that fans and the general public learn about real dinosaurs and paleontology through the constant repetition and assertion of facts by enraged paleontologists?
I know that this really isn’t Game Grumps related, but this really needed to be said.
Hey this isn’t just for like people you’re a fan of. It could be someone you’re dating, a friend, a family member. You shouldn’t have to prove to anyone that you love/like/care about them.
This should be so obvious but you’d be surprised how much you let yourself forget. It’s always important to remind yourself of this. Don’t go in the same traps as you have done before, learn from mistakes, move on.
You don’t have to prove your love for someone. Love is always enough.
The Test Fleet has (mostly) returned unscathed! There is enough data for me to conclude that a 6th version is needed/wanted. Nothing major, only just fine tweaking.
ThereWILL be an opportunity to sign up as a Test Pilot again, but I can’t say when.
(This was a draft that for some reason didn’t post)
I watched Matthew’s video on FNAF; and this sums up much of what I’ve been thinking. It’s a bit long, 25 minutes but honesty, if you can’t listen for 25 minutes (which you can even speed up) about a more in-depth review on the topic you might not have even read yourself, then I feel pity for you. Matpat does a great job being neutral, seeing the bad but also the good. I hope everyone can make their peace, especially Scott.
An important foundation for the experimental economics is the 1944 publication of von Neumann and Morgenstern, “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior” ( Princeton, 1944, p. 86). Accordingly it is held that human choices can be ascertained from game-like experiments. The problem with all this that game is not the real world. According to Mises,
The immediate aim in playing a game is to defeat the partner according to the rules of the game. This is a peculiar and special case of acting. Most actions do not aim at anybody’s defeat or loss. They aim at an improvement in conditions. It can happen that this improvement is attained at some other men’s expense. But this is certainly not always the case. It is, to put it mildly, certainly not the case within the regular operation of a social system based on the division of labor.
There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire. There may exist an analogy between the strategy of a card player and that of a bluffer. There is no need to investigate this problem. He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path.7
I cannot believe I just watched Matpat genuinely try to come up with a way for Mark to be the child that was stolen when the last name MURRAY is literally there for him to make the connection-
