|
People who say "neo Puritan" and "secular moralist" are idiots
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's a true argument, only the government can censor things, because only the government has the legal authority to actively punish you for speech Tell that to Charlie Hebdo. Legal authority isn't the limit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
LostRook posted:Tell that to Charlie Hebdo. Legal authority isn't the limit. violence isn't censorship. it's violence censorship is when you punish a person or organization for speech you don't like. violence is when you harm another person's body with a weapon
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i know people keep throwing this accusation around, but as soon as aatrek was confirmed as a sexual abuser, he was permabanned. many other users have been permad for actual or cartoon child porn over the years. it is not permitted here Reminder that reddit had to be shamed into banning jailbait by goons and then the thread making the announcement had a nearly even split between up and down votes, with all the top rated comments being guys who were frothing at the mouth about not being able to jack off to kids
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:violence isn't censorship. it's violence And in the case of Charlie Hebdo, it was both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Edit for your edit: Popular Thug Drink posted:censorship is when you punish a person or organization for speech you don't like. violence is when you harm another person's body with a weapon And when you take a gun to murder people for speech you don't like, it's both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's a true argument, only the government can censor things, because only the government has the legal authority to actively punish you for speech Censorship is a concept divorced from government, though. It's not a legal term. If I were a mod I could easily censor your posts. It doesn't mean you're barred from ever speaking, but it means you would be barred from speaking here, where you have a higher stake in making arguments and would therefore make a bigger impact on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:And in the case of Charlie Hebdo, it was both. chicken goes well with waffles, but chicken != waffles
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:violence isn't censorship. it's violence From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's a true argument, only the government can censor things, because only the government has the legal authority to actively punish you for speech How are you going to rationalize all this when a full metal jacket penetrates your skull? You can't ignore bullets. That's not speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:violence isn't censorship. it's violence
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:And what does that have to do with ethics in games journalism? You're a moderator of this forum. If anyone should be taking pains to avoid being a smartass, it's you. That's never been the be-all end-all of the discussion here and you knew it when you posted this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
turnways posted:Censorship is a concept divorced from government, though. It's not a legal term. If I were a mod I could easily censor your posts. It doesn't mean you're barred from ever speaking, but it means you would be barred from speaking here, where you have a higher stake in making arguments and would therefore make a bigger impact on you. it's not really censorship though as i voluntarily continue to post here and thus implicitly agree to moderation rules, as uneven as that moderation may be at times
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Al Cowens posted:Are you still going to be thinking this when a private entity (some creepy gently caress on twitter) wields the power of the government (local police) to get the SWAT team at your door? are you threatening to swat me i don't think the police are going to shoot me because i asked you how the feminists are trying to kill you in your sleep
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
LostRook posted:That's the oppositions mocking definition of gamergate, not a defined limit. A private company deciding to do something isn't censorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i don't think it's stupid to remove disruptive people or restrict their speech. people who tend to be super obnoxious about a thing usually don't have anything useful to say anyway. speech isn't an abstract good, it's a series of relationships between people and is thus subject to interpersonal dynamics such as "this person is horrible and i wish they would shut up" Well best of luck to you then. I hope and wish the best for you in all of your endeavors toward silencing those you wish would simply shut up because they are annoying in your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
KongMu posted:Well best of luck to you then. I hope and wish the best for you in all of your endeavors toward silencing those you wish would simply shut up because they are annoying in your opinion. if you've never encountered someone who was so obnoxious that you wish they would go away, then i have some bad news for you...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:A private company deciding to do something isn't censorship. Yes, it is. The government doesn't have a monopoly on whether or not free speech is respected. People calling for something representative of an idea they don't like to be removed, and then that thing being removed because of that call, is censorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:seems to me that corporate censorship is much more of an immediate and pressing concern given that gaming journalism just reproduces press releases from gaming companies as news. It is, gaming journalism is dumb and hilarious at the same time and I never want it to change. Popular Thug Drink posted:in my experience people who are very deeply anti-censorship tend to have very fringe and unhealthy opinions It really is a fine line because there is some horrible, horrible poo poo out there. Obviously, there are limits to free speech and what should and shouldn't be censored. Since we are on the topic of video games, I vaguely remember in the mid-early 90s when I was a kid there was a news report on a white supremacist video game which was a concentration camp simulator. Even with my strong feelings on free speech, even I can't condone poo poo like that. It really was a reaction to everyone pulling merchandise and toys with the flag and it was a dumb decision. But yeah, either historical sims/games or alt-history stuff like Wolfenstein: The New Order (which was surprisingly good). Never glorified. I really should check it out. I'll never be able to play as the confederates though, just like I can't play as the Nazis in Hearts of Iron. Crushing the confederacy in Vicky 2 never gets old though (I do love me some paradox titles). Since it is on Steam, I'll add it to my wishlist. I really could go for something like that, and it seems really good, especially for an iOS port.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you've never encountered someone who was so obnoxious that you wish they would go away, then i have some bad news for you... I have and I call them stupid in public where people can hear. It's highly effective, you should try it sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:A private company deciding to do something isn't censorship. Censorship isn't a defined limit, either. Though when a monopolized platform bans your product under a false pretext, I think that can be a reasonable case for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:I really should check it out. I'll never be able to play as the confederates though, just like I can't play as the Nazis in Hearts of Iron. Crushing the confederacy in Vicky 2 never gets old though (I do love me some paradox titles). Since it is on Steam, I'll add it to my wishlist. I really could go for something like that, and it seems really good, especially for an iOS port. but, it's just a video game? playing as the confederacy is more interesting, as you are the aggressor. the union is easy, all you have to do is play defensive and not make bad decisions
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you threatening to swat me I could crapflood some more but that would veer too offtopic and you wouldn't read it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
KongMu posted:Well best of luck to you then. I hope and wish the best for you in all of your endeavors toward silencing those you wish would simply shut up because they are annoying in your opinion. If you don't emptyqoute me, on here and on twitter and Facebook, you're silencing me. Stop silencing me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Al Cowens posted:Re: Feminists. Check my post history in this thread. i've read your posts in this thread and while you've stated you believe that white feminists are trying to kill you, you haven't really explained how or why
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:A private company deciding to do something isn't censorship. I agree with you philosophically, but a lot of private companies in the modern day wield a ton of power and authority. "Their house, their rules" is great until their house encompasses entire markets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:Yes, it is. The government doesn't have a monopoly on whether or not free speech is respected. People calling for something representative of an idea they don't like to be removed, and then that thing being removed because of that call, is censorship. Private companies are allowed to make decisions based on consumer feedback. That isn't a freedom of speech issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
KongMu posted:I have and I call them stupid in public where people can hear. It's highly effective, you should try it sometime. Did everyone applaud and decide you were right and smart?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:but, it's just a video game? This is true. I know it is kind of a weird thing and I should get over it. But in general in strategy I do favor more defensive play styles, so that is probably a large part of the reason. When I pick it up I'll do both to get out of my comfort zone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Did everyone applaud and decide you were right and smart? No applause, but yes. And I'm flattered you care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Also, Apple has already started reinstating apps in the store:quote:We’ve spoken to Apple more extensively about the removals now. The company says it’s working with developers to quickly get their games reinstated to the App Store. But then again, what exactly did this have to do with ethics in video game journalism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also, Apple has already started reinstating apps in the store: Trabisnikof posted:But then again, what exactly did this have to do with ethics in video game journalism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:but, it's just a video game? honestly id love more games to let you play as the non-american side of wars. Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cubans etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
This thread moves fast. I'm probably late to the party but I thought PBS GameShow had a pretty good take on the Witcher 3 race controversy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVgRHXVDeg8 TLDW; Games have a huge race problem that needs to be addressed but Witcher 3 might be the one game where the bullshit arguments against racial inclusion might actually apply. There is more to diversity than racial diversity, ethnic and national diversity need to be taken into account, especially when evaluating products from lands where historical tensions and oppression fall along lines of ethnicity and national origin not race. Also, can we stop with the the bingo card  s. A bingo card isn't an argument.To clarify: GamerGate is the dumbest poo poo on the internet and it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Private companies are allowed to make decisions based on consumer feedback. That isn't a freedom of speech issue. If Youtube removed every video portraying a conservative presidential candidate in a positive light or promoting conservative candidates for state legislatures in August of 2016 because of tremendous negative feedback from a majority of their users, you wouldn't consider that a free speech issue. Yes or no? Apple's app store is too big to pretend that it doesn't have a massive effect on what people are exposed to. Apple tells millions of people what is acceptable for them to see with the decisions they make about what to host on the App Store. If that's not the same as a newspaper or cable news channel pushing an agenda and ignoring everything that contradicts it, I don't believe you could provide a convincing explanation for what is. stop making people defend stupid poo poo we don't loving enjoy it
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Just a friendly reminder to not-hellthread, don't take this as an extremely serious issue. This topic is like the Lovecraft tome of the internet. The longer you stare into it and rant at people, you risk going down the path of cardboard box a and spacedad. Down that path lies madness. Also regarding Spacedad: XMNN posted:I am constantly amazed by gamergate's eldritch power to make people lose their minds. LostRook posted:And that mainstream journalism just reproduce articles by games journalists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:honestly id love more games to let you play as the non-american side of wars. Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cubans etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:If Youtube removed every video portraying a conservative presidential candidate in a positive light or promoting conservative candidates for state legislatures in August of 2016 because of tremendous negative feedback from a majority of their users, you wouldn't consider that a free speech issue. Yes or no? Youtube already removes, or age restricts, inappropriate material. It's not a free speech issue because youtube (a)isn't the only video host in the world and (b)is a private company with its own TOS. And anyway, there's a difference between removing all material by politicians from one party in a two-party state and the (heavy-handed) removal of apps that use a symbol of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:If Youtube removed every video portraying a conservative presidential candidate in a positive light or promoting conservative candidates for state legislatures in August of 2016 because of tremendous negative feedback from a majority of their users, you wouldn't consider that a free speech issue. Yes or no? Its not a free speech issue because its a private corporation making the decision. You may not like it, but its their prerogative. Legally, that's how it works in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:If Youtube removed every video portraying a conservative presidential candidate in a positive light or promoting conservative candidates for state legislatures in August of 2016 because of tremendous negative feedback from a majority of their users, you wouldn't consider that a free speech issue. Yes or no? And if MegaHitler came back tomorrow, THis is a stupid what-if, particularly because legally speaking it's not a free speech issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:And if MegaHitler came back tomorrow, Of course it's absurd. The point is that The Law and even plain old precedent can be used to justify absurd things whether you like it or not. You have to make decisions with the absurd in mind. Sinnlos posted:Its not a free speech issue because its a private corporation making the decision. You may not like it, but its their prerogative. Legally, that's how it works in the USA. They're not legally prevented from doing it. But do you approve of them doing it? Do you really think that it's acceptable for a company with a near-monopoly on video hosting in this country to silence a political viewpoint because a lot of people don't want to hear it? Do you really think that as long as someone can still shout something at people on a street corner, that their right to free speech has not been infringed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:26
|
|