|
There's no crowd today because Gamescom isn't open to the public until thursday |
its PiG who's casting with Day9. He's an Australian zerg player
|
I don't like how terran can lose so many workers , go down to less than 30, yet his production doesn't get interfered with at all. Due to mules he still has enough income to continually produce off all his barracks. Makes this game so much less interesting to watch when 1 race can just ignore so much economic damage.
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 MCDayC wrote:
Who;s the guy casting with Day9? The Australian zerg player PiG
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 Dosey wrote:Pun intended?
lets not touch on that subject
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 MCDayC wrote:
Who;s the guy casting with Day9?
PiG, australian gamer that's qualified for groups.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 MCDayC wrote:
Who;s the guy casting with Day9?
PiG
He's pretty good
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:48 pmp10 wrote:On August 16 2012 02:47 bo1b wrote:On August 16 2012 02:46 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:40 bo1b wrote:On August 16 2012 02:38 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:34 Chessz wrote:On August 16 2012 02:27 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:26 Le BucheRON wrote:
[quote]
Yes, and rape is also another word for canola (where the oil comes from) but come on. We all know the connection here. I'm not going around calling people "faggot" and excusing myself because it has different meanings (cigarette, pile of wood). I'm pretty sure when I use the word "rape" to describe utterly dominating and crushing someone in the context of competition, I'm not referring to them actually having held down the opposing player and fucked them. Yea i'm sure that's the connotation you're applying to the word, but you actually undermine your own argument because in usage/linguistics debates, an appeal to context goes both ways (ie. sensitive to both sender and receiver of a message). So there isn't any reason to not avoid potential harm on behalf of the receivers of your message. It's not the horrible terrible faux pas some make it out to be, but you can't argue for your own use by asserting only your denotation applies. Cause it will always go both ways. It just boils down to lazy/juvenile diction if anything. Well aware of that. I understand why people might be offended by the use of a touchy word. I think that's their error, though. See, this is what I don't get. Why should you use a touchy word which you could easily avoid? Its so much easier to avoid those words and not harm someone. Even if you feel its somewhat irrational of them, why not just make a minimum effort to be kind to your fellow man? Do you feel it's societies fault that a band aid solution to a problem is better then actually fixing it? Is wishing that people didn't mention rape better then providing support and therapy to people who were raped? Why not both? Why not avoid triggering people as well as providing them help. There's a difference between not flagrantly using the word rape and not addressing rape. Again, my whole philosophy on this issue is just try to be kind to your fellow man. Because avoiding a word isn't being kind - it's avoiding a word. Conversely censoring people from using a word because it has a completely different meaning to something horrible is not being kind at all. This isn't about avoiding a word. It's about watering-down it's meaning. It's not about watering down it's meaning at all, it's about using a word with different meanings.
The word has only one meaning.
The fact that it's accepted in gaming sub-culture as synonym for decisive winning doesn't make that use valid in general English language.
|
On August 16 2012 02:53 Bashion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:52 Dosey wrote:On August 16 2012 02:51 Bashion wrote:
Forgg untouchable! Pun intended? lets not touch on that subject
True, ForGG won this game without harassment.
|
lol that was a short interview
|
Well, that was a decent interview ;D
|
On August 16 2012 02:53 Bashion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:52 Dosey wrote:On August 16 2012 02:51 Bashion wrote:
Forgg untouchable! Pun intended? lets not touch on that subject
that was a touching plea.
|
That was a nice call by the interviewer!
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 mordk wrote:
Yes! Nice by forGG and any loss on EG makes me happy :D
haha! I 100% agree on that one :D
|
|
|
On August 16 2012 02:52 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:48 pmp10 wrote:On August 16 2012 02:47 bo1b wrote:On August 16 2012 02:46 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:40 bo1b wrote:On August 16 2012 02:38 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:34 Chessz wrote:On August 16 2012 02:27 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:26 Le BucheRON wrote:
[quote]
Yes, and rape is also another word for canola (where the oil comes from) but come on. We all know the connection here. I'm not going around calling people "faggot" and excusing myself because it has different meanings (cigarette, pile of wood). I'm pretty sure when I use the word "rape" to describe utterly dominating and crushing someone in the context of competition, I'm not referring to them actually having held down the opposing player and fucked them. Yea i'm sure that's the connotation you're applying to the word, but you actually undermine your own argument because in usage/linguistics debates, an appeal to context goes both ways (ie. sensitive to both sender and receiver of a message). So there isn't any reason to not avoid potential harm on behalf of the receivers of your message. It's not the horrible terrible faux pas some make it out to be, but you can't argue for your own use by asserting only your denotation applies. Cause it will always go both ways. It just boils down to lazy/juvenile diction if anything. Well aware of that. I understand why people might be offended by the use of a touchy word. I think that's their error, though. See, this is what I don't get. Why should you use a touchy word which you could easily avoid? Its so much easier to avoid those words and not harm someone. Even if you feel its somewhat irrational of them, why not just make a minimum effort to be kind to your fellow man? Do you feel it's societies fault that a band aid solution to a problem is better then actually fixing it? Is wishing that people didn't mention rape better then providing support and therapy to people who were raped? Why not both? Why not avoid triggering people as well as providing them help. There's a difference between not flagrantly using the word rape and not addressing rape. Again, my whole philosophy on this issue is just try to be kind to your fellow man. Because avoiding a word isn't being kind - it's avoiding a word. Conversely censoring people from using a word because it has a completely different meaning to something horrible is not being kind at all. This isn't about avoiding a word. It's about watering-down it's meaning. It's not about watering down it's meaning at all, it's about using a word with different meanings.
This is pretty close to the definition to diluting the meaning of something.
|
On August 16 2012 02:55 superjoppe wrote:
lol that was a short interview
Well ForGG asked for that and the interviewer complied, which I think is really fine.
|
On August 16 2012 02:53 mxh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:45 Dosey wrote:
GRRM can write an explicit rape scene in a book - It's a best seller and no one complains. Someone mentions the word rape on a forum - The entire community is instantly labeled as cancerous and insensitive, preventing the scene from growing Makes sense. GRRM is a professional who has spent decades mastering his craft. You (and whoever posted 'rape') are some dickhead on the internet. There is also a difference between using 'rape' to refer to a 'rape' (as GRRM does & describes) and using 'rape' to refer to a computer game. Yes, there's a difference. I can't remember who, but sometime after the tosh.0 rape controversy recently, one comedian stated that you can make rape jokes - it just takes a level of tact, humor, intelligence and mastery that nearly all comedians (I'm talking professionals) don't have. The touchier the subject, the harder it is to handle. This applies here. If the poster or caster or whoever mentioned it managed to do so in a top-notch manner, we wouldn't be having this discussion. More likely it was an offhand remark, and can't reasonably be compared with a scene in a book series that someone has literally spent thousands of hours on.
Dictioanry.com-- entry # 4
rape- an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation
|
|
|
On August 16 2012 02:53 Jacobs Ladder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 02:52 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:50 Chessz wrote:On August 16 2012 02:46 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:40 bo1b wrote:On August 16 2012 02:38 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On August 16 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:34 Chessz wrote:On August 16 2012 02:27 Shiori wrote:On August 16 2012 02:26 Le BucheRON wrote:
[quote]
Yes, and rape is also another word for canola (where the oil comes from) but come on. We all know the connection here. I'm not going around calling people "faggot" and excusing myself because it has different meanings (cigarette, pile of wood). I'm pretty sure when I use the word "rape" to describe utterly dominating and crushing someone in the context of competition, I'm not referring to them actually having held down the opposing player and fucked them. Yea i'm sure that's the connotation you're applying to the word, but you actually undermine your own argument because in usage/linguistics debates, an appeal to context goes both ways (ie. sensitive to both sender and receiver of a message). So there isn't any reason to not avoid potential harm on behalf of the receivers of your message. It's not the horrible terrible faux pas some make it out to be, but you can't argue for your own use by asserting only your denotation applies. Cause it will always go both ways. It just boils down to lazy/juvenile diction if anything. Well aware of that. I understand why people might be offended by the use of a touchy word. I think that's their error, though. See, this is what I don't get. Why should you use a touchy word which you could easily avoid? Its so much easier to avoid those words and not harm someone. Even if you feel its somewhat irrational of them, why not just make a minimum effort to be kind to your fellow man? Do you feel it's societies fault that a band aid solution to a problem is better then actually fixing it? Is wishing that people didn't mention rape better then providing support and therapy to people who were raped? Why not both? Why not avoid triggering people as well as providing them help. There's a difference between not flagrantly using the word rape and not addressing rape. Again, my whole philosophy on this issue is just try to be kind to your fellow man. It's a shame these two things are simultaneously perceived to be trivial: 1) the flagrant use of "rape" 2) the effort needed to choose different words/expand vocabulary They are trivial. Of all the injustices in the world, people taking offense from non-malicious use of a sensitive word is probably at the bottom, if even on the list at all. But it also takes no effort to avoid. Fixing famine is a huge issue, it requires a lot of effort from a lot of people. Individually avoiding the word "rape" because it can trigger PTSD, flashbacks, and other horrific things for victims takes pretty much zero effort.
It doesn't take zero effort because most of the time it's a habitual or offhand remark. You know what takes zero effort? Not attacking the personality of people who offhandedly use an offensive word and assuming that they actually hate black people or think people who get raped are weaklings, or whatever. That's far more insensitive and malicious, and is exactly what you're doing when you consider people who say these words bad people.
Also Dictioanry.com-- entry # 4
rape- an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
