General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Tulpa | 3,488]

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes really. When the bar is set so incredibly low it has the same outcome. I gave some examples but really it can be a ton of similar things.

Yeah society is silencing people under the guise of being good themselves. Will it be progress tomorrow when you can't create a game/movie or play/watch it because someone is offended? Or if you yourself get hounded for wrongspeech? You think it's progress with a gazillion of special interest groups sitting around all day waiting to get ticked off and run a bullying campaign on someone or something. This is not about eggman.

Just about every instance you can trace back to some offensive behavior that  is no longer acceptable. Usually targeting a disadvantaged group. That is the real tragedy.

No one is making up stuff to be offended by.

There are plenty of ways to make games/movies/whatever without being offensive. You just have to learn to not be offensive.

 

Or, you know, go ahead and make your offensive whatever and deal with the consequences. Your choice.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Tulpa

[VegHead | 127]

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes really. When the bar is set so incredibly low it has the same outcome. I gave some examples but really it can be a ton of similar things.

Yeah society is silencing people under the guise of being good themselves. Will it be progress tomorrow when you can't create a game/movie or play/watch it because someone is offended? Or if you yourself get hounded for wrongspeech? You think it's progress with a gazillion of special interest groups sitting around all day waiting to get ticked off and run a bullying campaign on someone or something. This is not about eggman.

There are definitely people who thrive on the kinds of spite you're referencing, but we are mostly talking about interacting with every day people.  It's easy to point at Corporation X or Group Z and rail against them, but most of us aren't in spheres of influence where such things have relative meaning.  Lets talk about your neighbor or a coworker.  If they're offended by something you say, and you have to see and interact with them everyday, are you going to be polite to them and adapt to their concerns, or go on a screed about how the world is silencing your offending speech?

[cartman | 195]

Just now, Tulpa said:

Just about every instance you can trace back to some offensive behavior that  is no longer acceptable. Usually targeting a disadvantaged group. That is the real tragedy.

No one is making up stuff to be offended by.

There are plenty of ways to make games/movies/whatever without being offensive. You just have to learn to not be offensive.

Well we already have a ton of games that wouldn't exist if those who deemed them offensive had it their way so no you can't just "learn" not to be offensive. And even those issues that weren't complained about, since getting offended is subjective i can pull increasingly ridiculous examples and easily shut your argument down. But you can't do the reverse, so if i deem say any violent game as unacceptable you have to take it at face value. If i deem illegal activities in games unacceptable (like GTA) you have to take that at face value aswell.

I think there's a real case of this where a game was banned in Australia due to revolving around graffitti. That's the type of shit you'll have to defend if i start getting offended.

[Lincoln | 230]

41 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

Exactly. The incident in question is minor but it is also part of the reason why we now have a cancel culture.

 

Because you always have to assume malice.

We have cancel culture because people are finally able to speak out against celebrity rapists without being ostracized

[Lincoln | 230]

1 hour ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Lincoln

[VegHead | 127]

2 minutes ago, cartman said:

Well we already have a ton of games that wouldn't exist if those who deemed them offensive had it their way so no you can't just "learn" not to be offensive. And even those issues that weren't complained about, since getting offended is subjective i can pull increasingly ridiculous examples and easily shut your argument down. But you can't do the reverse, so if i deem say any violent game as unacceptable you have to take it at face value. If i deem illegal activities in games unacceptable (like GTA) you have to take that at face value aswell.

I think there's a real case of this where a game was banned in Australia due to revolving around graffitti. That's the type of shit you'll have to defend if i start getting offended.

You're misconstruing two issues.  One is social censorship, and the other is governmental censorship.  If you want to make and do offensive things, literally nobody here is advocating that you shouldn't have the ability to do so if you please.  You are just asking that we not be able to express our displeasure at said offensive things.  That's not how a free society works.  You get to do what you want, but you have to listen to the rest of us if we don't like it as we try to change your mind on continuing that behavior.  Even so, nobody is advocating forced compliance.  You can keep being an offensive part of society if you want, but society can then choose to ostracize and not deal with you.  That's totally fair, and you can't force people to like you or your actions.  That's a very immature view of society.

What Australia did was a governmental ban, which is totally different.  I wouldn't want that at all.

[Hammerfestus | 3,824]

8 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

Ignorant about what, exactly. If it's Vox, then oh well.

Vox is not the point.  That was a pointless and obviously agenda driven source though it would’ve done you some good to at least skim for the sake of the conversation at hand.  This “debate” has devolved from the thoughtful, interesting conversation when arch and m308 were the ones debating to a bunch of friggin parrots just repeating lines they heard on the googles.  There’s no nuance.  There’s no attempts at coming to a better understanding of the reality of the situation through intellectually honest discourse.  It’s just who can quote Rachel Maddow or Gretchen Carlson the most times apparently wins.    Good job.

[VegHead | 127]

Just now, Hammerfestus said:

Vox is not the point.  That was a pointless and obviously agenda driven source though it would’ve done you some good to at least skim for the sake of the conversation at hand.  This “debate” has devolved from the thoughtful, interesting conversation when arch and m308 were the ones debating to a bunch of friggin parrots just repeating lines they heard on the googles.  There’s no nuance.  There’s no attempts at coming to a better understanding of the reality of the situation through intellectually honest discourse.  It’s just who can quote Rachel Maddow or Gretchen Carlson the most times apparently wins.    Good job.

I don't recall quoting either of those two. 

[Hammerfestus | 3,824]

Just now, epiclotus said:

I don't recall quoting either of those two. 

Oh my bad.  You win.  I bet your parents are proud the spent all that money sending you to the university of Phoenix.

[VegHead | 127]

1 minute ago, Hammerfestus said:

Oh my bad.  You win.  I bet your parents are proud the spent all that money sending you to the university of Phoenix.

My parents stopped giving me money for college after I flunked out my 2nd freshman semester because of my clinical depression and poor social choices.  I paid for the rest of college myself, and graduated with honors at a 4-year state university.  I have a bachelors in the comparative study of religion, with minors in history, Jewish studies, and computer science. My Mom and Dad are proud of my accomplishments. It was hell to get through, but almost ten years later, I am still gladly paying off the loans I took out to fund my education. 

[Tulpa | 3,488]

19 minutes ago, cartman said:

Well we already have a ton of games that wouldn't exist if those who deemed them offensive had it their way so no you can't just "learn" not to be offensive.

Sure you can. Look at what the offense is that is actually being targeted and see why. It's not a case of shutting down every thing that may be offensive to one person, it's almost always something that targets a disadvantaged group that until recently had no way of fighting back.

Some people just don't want to learn.

And like I said, you can put out whatever you want. A lot of people put out subversive stuff all the time and weather the flack, if there is any. But when you deal with large corporations that have things like stock prices that are affected by controversy, you have to learn to play in that business. It is what it is.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

11 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Oh my bad.  You win.  I bet your parents are proud the spent all that money sending you to the university of Phoenix.

Super thoughtful, interesting discourse here.

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

Sure you can. Look at what the offense is that is actually being targeted and see why. It's not a case of shutting down every thing that may be offensive to one person, it's almost always something that targets a disadvantaged group that until recently had no way of fighting back.

Some people just don't want to learn.

And like I said, you can put out whatever you want. A lot of people put out subversive stuff all the time and weather the flack, if there is any. But when you deal with large corporations that have things like stock prices that are affected by controversy, you have to learn to play in that business. It is what it is.

How can you? You either did or didn't release Mortal Kombat/Doom/Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the violence there's no other option. Remember back in the day when movies didn't allow cussing, sex and mobsters ending up in any other way than as cowards begging at face of their demise? The "why" of your questions is clear: immoral behaviour was not to be shown. The only thing remaining is it happens or it doesn't.

 

[Hammerfestus | 3,824]

9 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Super thoughtful, interesting discourse here.

Oh thank god “everyone’s a racist” is pulling for you.

It’s what you guys do, pretend you didn’t hear salient points to try to turn the conversation something you can rebutt.  No one cares where you actually went to school or who paid for it, or what your parents think of you.  Jesus H. Christ.  The point was that the original point sailed over your head because you want to tell me that you never quoted Rachel maddow

[VegHead | 127]

2 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Oh thank god “everyone’s a racist” is pulling for you.

It’s what you guys do, pretend you didn’t hear salient points to try to turn the conversation something you can rebutt.  No one cares where you actually went to school or who paid for it, or what your parents think of you.  Jesus H. Christ.  The point was that the original point sailed over your head because you want to tell me that you never quoted Rachel maddow

Yet, you missed my point. I read your reply that the conversation had devolved into parroting. As a participant in this discussion, I felt I was still adding salient points to the narrative, and hadn't fallen into a broken repetition of soundbytes.  The point sailed over your head because you wanted to post a snarky one-off instead of addressing any of the arguments I had previously put forth. 

[VegHead | 127]

Also, I never assumed you cared about where I went to school or who paid for it.  Your comment questioned the efficacy of my education and ability to support myself in such an endeavor, thereby questioning my ability to be a quality participant in this discussion. My response refutes your assertion.  

[kuriatsu | 65]

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

How can you? You either did or didn't release Mortal Kombat/Doom/Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the violence there's no other option. Remember back in the day when movies didn't allow cussing, sex and mobsters ending up in any other way than as cowards begging at face of their demise? The "why" of your questions is clear: immoral behaviour was not to be shown. The only thing remaining is it happens or it doesn't.

 

It really seems like you're looking at this as a "me me me me me me me me" type thing.

You can. Companies release stuff like that all the time and they did back then too. The problem is that there was backlash. Did the companies go down? Some of them, sure.

But the problem is not what was offensive about it, its not about who was offended  its about why.

Lets take the texas chainsaw massacre for instance. That was objectionable because of the violence. Its not about what was offending about it, its how the parties act in regards to these.

If its something that can actually be more lethal to some people, like....say.....calling names, discrimination, and offensive material promoting certain factors that are in favour of the former 2 things, then I can see why it'd start to be controversial. I don't see a point in complaining about violence itself IF its in movies or something, otherwise I think a lot of people would be arguing about the lion king.(and a lot of people are arguing about the lying king) Now if its about violence toward someone or a group of people specifically, thats something worth fighting against.

If its causing people to mimic the things in the movies, that's another issue entirely.

There are a lot of things that are objectionable in the world. The smaller things aren't worthwhile in arguments, the larger things definitely are.

example of things to fight for: civil and human rights of minority groups(examples being: noone calling people names or murdering others or mistreating others simply because of X arbitrary trait that they have no control over whatsoever) prevention of ridiculously stupid activity in the government perpetrated by morons who wouldn't know the constitution from a carrot, as well as various other things, common decency and respect for all types of people.

Translation/TLDR: people are going to do stupid things, always, doesn't matter who they are. There will be backlash. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction and noone is immune to criticism or the law.

 

edit: I went in a mini tirade there to try to get my point across, sorry.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by kuriatsu

[m308gunner | 352]

17 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Save your spiel about the KKK. 
 

And like I said, I dont really care Who endorses Him.  So all that nonsense about “my objectivity” is misguided.  Just like the whole “people who look for racism everywhere”  talk. I personally dont want anyone to be racist. Just calling a spade a spade.  

I took issue at Quest saying “who cares about the KKK, they arent a big deal” which is bullshit, and quite frankly, statements like that are how white nationalism is seeping into the mainstream. In a few years, discourse will be “the stuff they did isnt that bad, they were just joking lol” just like the people denying the holocaust.  (Not accusing you quest)

 

Hate groups like that are a big deal, not just from a historical Perspective-Nowadays they just spend time online on reddit or forums, instead of in backwoods dressed in white robes. 
 

Appreciate the heads up on Joe Rogan, but Not a fan. Maybe Ill look up the other guy.

 

Save my spiel? Come now, MrWunderful. You're made of stronger stuff.

 The point I was trying to make about the KKK is that their membership is on a downward trajectory and they are increasingly irrelevant in today's culture, especially on a historical trajectory, and are thus not as much of a threat as you might like to think. This and many more salient points are made by Daryl Davis in the Joe Rogan interview, and listening to it would help ground your concern that that hate group, in particular, is not the threat you may think they are.

Are you sure that the "white nationalism seeping into the mainstream" isn't just the pendulum of history/social norms swinging away from the hyper sensitive mindset of the mainstream into a more robust and mature mindset? One that is able to face the evils of the past and not blink? Or maybe something akin to gallows humor? Things that are so dark that for some the only way to cope with the magnitude of evil is to laugh at it? Dave Chapelle's Clayton Bigsby sketch comes to mind.

I would rather have the hate groups online, honestly. They are easier to keep track of and refute that way. I also don't have to wade through fields of ticks or get lost in the woods.

[m308gunner | 352]

1 hour ago, Hammerfestus said:

Vox is not the point.  That was a pointless and obviously agenda driven source though it would’ve done you some good to at least skim for the sake of the conversation at hand.  This “debate” has devolved from the thoughtful, interesting conversation when arch and m308 were the ones debating to a bunch of friggin parrots just repeating lines they heard on the googles.  There’s no nuance.  There’s no attempts at coming to a better understanding of the reality of the situation through intellectually honest discourse.  It’s just who can quote Rachel Maddow or Gretchen Carlson the most times apparently wins.    Good job.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

How can you? You either did or didn't release Mortal Kombat/Doom/Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the violence there's no other option. Remember back in the day when movies didn't allow cussing, sex and mobsters ending up in any other way than as cowards begging at face of their demise? The "why" of your questions is clear: immoral behaviour was not to be shown. The only thing remaining is it happens or it doesn't.

 

There's a big difference between depicting violence/immoral behavior and targeting a disadvantaged group of people.

[VegHead | 127]

16 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

 The point I was trying to make about the KKK is that their membership is on a downward trajectory and they are increasingly irrelevant in today's culture, especially on a historical trajectory, and are thus not as much of a threat as you might like to think.

As literal organization, I agree.  I think you see a staunch reaction to KKK imagery more out of concern for it becoming a symbol instead of a memory.  True Nazism died in 1945, but look how that has lingered, festered, and regrown.  

Quote

I also don't have to wade through fields of ticks or get lost in the woods.

Hahahaha, that's hilarious.  

[MrWunderful | 2,926]

20 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Save my spiel? Come now, MrWunderful. You're made of stronger stuff.

 The point I was trying to make about the KKK is that their membership is on a downward trajectory and they are increasingly irrelevant in today's culture, especially on a historical trajectory, and are thus not as much of a threat as you might like to think. This and many more salient points are made by Daryl Davis in the Joe Rogan interview, and listening to it would help ground your concern that that hate group, in particular, is not the threat you may think they are.

Are you sure that the "white nationalism seeping into the mainstream" isn't just the pendulum of history/social norms swinging away from the hyper sensitive mindset of the mainstream into a more robust and mature mindset? One that is able to face the evils of the past and not blink? Or maybe something akin to gallows humor? Things that are so dark that for some the only way to cope with the magnitude of evil is to laugh at it? Dave Chapelle's Clayton Bigsby sketch comes to mind.

I would rather have the hate groups online, honestly. They are easier to keep track of and refute that way. I also don't have to wade through fields of ticks or get lost in the woods.

Now white nationalism is “robust and mature” lol. Thanks for proving my point. Thats the exact legitimization I wanted you to save in your spiel. 
 

I am not trying to hear any defense of hate groups, sorry. 
 

Instead of saying “Yeah being supported by that group isn’t such a great look”  (which isnt even true)it’s one argument saying it’s not a big deal and another argument talking about how they’re not as powerful as they were before so it shouldn’t matter.  Quest could’ve just posted the link and instantly disproved the original comment, instead people are jumping to the defense of the KKK which is insane. 

[cartman | 195]

11 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

There's a big difference between depicting violence/immoral behavior and targeting a disadvantaged group of people.

Both are based on specific people getting to moralise for others. Disadvantaged groups should be protected from violence and actual racial hatred not satire, jokes, fictional characters.

[VegHead | 127]

8 minutes ago, cartman said:

Both are based on specific people getting to moralise for others. Disadvantaged groups should be protected from violence and actual racial hatred not satire, jokes, fictional characters.

Such things are often the beginnings of actual racial hatred.  Jews in Germany were often depicted in newspaper cartoons as having ratlike features, being sneaky, dirty, or obsessed with money.  They were vilified through jokes, and the general populace was turned against them.  You don't get the Night of Broken Glass without an apathetic populace. Making people into caricatures is one way to dehumanize them and help others justify their racist stances. 

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, epiclotus said:

Such things are often the beginnings of actual racial hatred.  Jews in Germany were often depicted in newspaper cartoons as having ratlike features, being sneaky, dirty, or obsessed with money.  They were vilified through jokes, and the general populace was turned against them.  You don't get the Night of Broken Glass without an apathetic populace. Making people into caricatures is one way to dehumanize them and help others justify their racist stances. 

No the cartoons were a sidenote of present racism not the actual cause of it. You had politics of segregation and Jews getting fired from their job. Actual racist sentiments outwardly blaming Jews for the post-WW1 recession and so on. Real shit had already caused the damage in wich context cartoons existed.