On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Oh wow, I just noticed this post and I said the same thing to you in the Casting Language Standards thread but if you don't think that raising kids it the responsibility of parents, then I think you're in the minority. The tools to protect your children if you want to are put in place, it's ultimately your responsibility to use them to keep your child away from stuff you don't want them exposed to. In this age, it's really stupid to attempt to remove all age-restrictive content because children may access it.
So no, I don't think it's a myth, it is a parents responsibility to raise their child...
And inc didn't make good arguments. He kept hammering the same line over and over again about catering to the 0.00001% of the population that is always on the lookout for a reason to become angry and refuses to accept any explanation than their own subjectively construed reality as absolute truth (It doesn't matter that you didn't mean it that way. In my dictionary that word is offensive and carries a set objective meaning), while Destiny argued against them. The only way inc rebuted Destiny (and Wheats) arguments were "I see what you did there", "(condescending laughter) I can't believe I'm hearing this" and "are you serious?!".
Uh, not really. Incontrol rebutted the context argument repeatedly, while Destiny responded only by repeating himself about context and making vague statements about transparency and sincerity. It's funny that you only said "Destiny argued against them" without elaborating. You clearly only heard what you wanted to hear.
I'm usually a iNcontrol fanboy and I hadn't ever heard about Destiny before I watched Live on Three yesterday, so I can't identify with you saying I went into this biased. I usually think iNcontrol is very eloquent and makes good arguments, but last night I was pretty shocked listening to him. I really didn't know whether to take him serious or if he was trolling. I don't think Destiny's statements about transparency and sincerity were vague at all. He kept comming with rational arguments and examples illustrating his point, and all iNcontrol was doing was acting outraged, flabergasted and condescending.
Since you're only speaking in generalities about the show, I'm gonna provide some specific excerpts that fly in the face of that bolded sentence.
Destiny: I think it's an insult to black people who were disparaged in the United States when somebody today claims the same offensiveness to a word that those people did earlier and tries to identify with that group of people...
Inctontrol: Part of the reason why it's not your place to deem their exerience with their race and racism as offensive or legitimate is because you're not walking in their shoes...If a person does experience racism and they have a good job, it's not like they get to channel the exact rage and discomfort of the 1950s in order for them to identify with that term being offensive.
Destiny: Honestly you can't believe that the word nigger carries teh same implications today as it did 50 years ago.
Incontrol: I think it's shallow to say that because your context of how you used it is inoffensive from your perspective, that for their context for it to also be inoffensive for them too because you didn't mean it that way.
Destiny: It's impossible to curtail your individual message to make sure that you don't offend any person out of a group of potentially millions of listeners.
Incontrol: Of course when I talk about the sun, some people are going to have a problem because their dad died of skin cancer...but when there's a word that we talk about, you know about, you've read in history, you've been educated....that carries a certain heavy heavy weight.
So yeah....when you say "The only way inc rebuted Destiny (and Wheats) arguments were "I see what you did there", "(condescending laughter) I can't believe I'm hearing this...", you're wrong.
a) "Part of the reason why it's not your place to deem their exerience with their race and racism as offensive or legitimate is because you're not walking in their shoes..." Incontrol should applye the same logic to Incontrol. Who made him the representative of the anti-racist league ?
b)"I think it's shallow to say that because your context of how you used it is inoffensive from your perspective...." That's the interesting part of the discussion but a) Destiny is not the one calling other people shallow just because they disagree from the very start and b) he's not the one telling other people what words they should or should not use (seems many people think they have a monopoly on this) ; if Incontrol had a solid list of words that shouldn't be used and could motivate why derogatory word "x" should be banned, when derogatory "y" should be ok-ed, he should have come with it. But to say "there's 2 words...wait no there's 4" (we're lucky the show was short, god knows how many would have suffered the ban hammer) just sounded silly and improvised.
c)"Of course when I talk about the sun...." Did he impersonate a dancing indian saying this ?
He did not have much of a point really, but he sure knows how to sound condescending, that's always helpful in an argument.
Yeah, I have to say you made no sense to me with this post...
For point a, What are you talking about? inControl can apply the same logic to himself but how would that be relevant to the point he was making, he was saying it's not his place to deem a black person's offense as illegitimate because he hasn't experienced it and it seems ignorant, he's not expressing a level of offense for black people, he's simply saying that if someone who is black in this case is offended by the word, "Nigger", it's not Destiny's place to say that's illegitimate.
Your point in regards to this makes no sense to me.
For point b, to pick out the part that you did seems kind of stupid since there were moments when inControl was being abrasive and condescending but this certainly wasn't one of them, saying that Destiny is shallow and saying that what he's saying is shallow or what he's saying makes him shallow are slightly different, the way he worded this wasn't any more abrasive that Destiny's responses, which were tame as well.
The number of words he chose jumping from two to four isn't really a point, while I do think singling out "rape" and "nigger" solely early on was an error, he made the point that there are certain "lightning rod words" that are known to be offensive in that they are referential to a specific group of people or to a heinous act that carries weight for some, and if it's not relevant or required, there's no reason to use it.
As for point c, No, he didn't.
inControl had a point, and he argued that point, there was some condescension but it was mostly in response to some slightly fallacious reasoning from Destiny in my opinion. Overall, they both made pretty decent arguments and represented their views adequately I'd say, though it was a little uncomfortable to listen to at times.
a. Exactly. Let black people express if they feel it's needed. I could have said that. Destiny could have said that. Inc has no point there, that's no argument against Destiny's use of words.
b. Again, who makes that list of words ? On what criterias ? Yours ? I'm not against people not using some words, some words shock me, I just don't understand why it should be this guy or that guy that should decide for someone else what can be tolerated and what cannot. If you don't like a guy's language because you think they convey wrong ideas, stay away from him. It's a lot about interpretation, you have the right to be offended by stuff faster than me (or in a different way), but to want them to adapt to you instead of the other way around is not logical to me.
c. Good. I don't like his impersonations to be honest. I think some of them have been way more offensive (and ad hominem) than any of Destiny's casting - and I am not watching NASL partly because of this (and some quick "sorry" does not make a clean slate for me, I'm not that much of a catholic). But no one should tell him what he can or cannot say.
LOL. <3 TL you make me laugh every time I wade into one of these threads.
On the topic of this thread, I'm so glad WoC is back, I've missed the banter of Wheat and friends. (of course I've also missed the Mp3 versions of the shows that according to my RSS still aren't all here)
On May 31 2011 08:07 vyyye wrote: [quote] Since when does Destiny's personal stream represent Teamliquid or E-sports as a whole? Of course (within limits) he can say whatever he wants, it's his stream.
How can you possibly think that it doesn't?
I don't know how old you are, or what your workplace experience is like, but people are fired and sanctioned every day for things that they do online or within the privacy of their own home, becuase of how those things reflect on their organizations. Right now, the fact that ROOT is standing by Destiny is a tacit endorsement of everything he said yesterday on the show, including his comment about "black kids wearing $200 sneakers", and everything he says on his stream. They're essentially affixing their seal of approval to what he's saying, and now ROOT has to deal with that image, whether they like it or not.
I don't know how old you are but at my age most would have enough reading comprehension to see that I never once mentioned ROOT.
Hit the refresh button and read the edit, since you need me to spell it out for you. A simple logical leap would have sufficed, but since you're a little slow, I made it more explicit for you.
I guess the KKK videos on Youtube represent Google then. Or maybe it has nothing to do with that as Youtube is nothing but a medium for people to submit videos, as TL is a place where streamers can show that they are streaming, or JTV is a place where streamers (surprise) stream. These organizations set their rules and their users (should) follow them, there's nothing more to it. What Destiny says doesn't bloody say anything about TL or JTV.
What goes on between Destiny and ROOT is his and ROOT's business and granted, Destiny represents his team in a way. But TL and e-sports? Nope. Similar to how forums work, here
The opinions expressed by our users do not reflect the official position of TeamLiquid.net or its staff.
You're welcome.
I missed the part where Youtube prominently lists the "KKK" to all it's viewers under "Featured" content.
And no, a disclaimer doesn't mean shit in and of itself. It might insulate them from liability if someone sued TL for libel or slander, but in terms of what we're talking about - TL's moral culpability for the content of its streamers - the disclaimer is meaningless.
Regardless, this entire discussion has been a sad fucking joke. As long as prominent members of this community can't understand why they're hurting themselves and other people by using racially-charged language, "e-sports" is going to remain a joke. The road to respectibility and increased visibility isn't found in catering to angry, hate-filled juveniles, period.
Destiny isn't featured because he uses racial slurs, he's featured as he's a pro gamer with a (relatively) huge following. His opinions, featured or not, does not reflect the sites he uses to stream on.
But sure, e-sports is going to remain a joke that caters to angry juveniles. After all, there is nothing more civilized than a pub with mature adults watching a football game. It's like slander isn't even part of their vocab'.
I'm going to have to agree with Destiny here. If you correlate language to maturity you are everything but mature.
Ah, now I see that you're just trolling this discussion. You don't have anything intelligible to add - you're just employing shoddy logic to try to make a nearly irrelevant point. Your first paragraph is conclusory and meaningless, and it ignores both objective reality and the common experience of anyone who's ever been affiliated with a professional sports organization (the idea of the NFL expecting a team to punish a player, rather than the league doing so, is laughable.) Your second paragraph is an irrelevant digression into pointlessness, and your third hilariously conflates the use of racially-charged and insensitive language with vanilla, everyday profanity, in a weak attempt at an ad hominem attack. If this is the most you have to add to the discussion, then I think you don't merit any further response.
I was flying over your post and my eye caught the word "vanilla" and my first reflex was "does he mean vanilla-face ?" Then I went on reading the post. On a normal day, I would never associate this with that. At some point you'll have to wonder if by seeing (racism) everywhere when there's none, you're not actually doing worse than good. You don't have to believe me but that's what happened. Words have a background but they also have the background every one of us gives to them (the context thing). You could also think of me as a racist and so on but then there's no conversation possible.
I guess I have no idea where you are from but you seem to have no experience with the systematic racism in America. I guess in the way you are like Destiny with his rich black man bullshit. This isn't some pipe dream by blacks complaining or seeing something that isn't there. There are very legitimate pressures on blacks that simply do not exist for whites in America and I don't see how you can pretend that it is some kind of oversensitivity. It is reality, so please stop pretending those who really are dealing with it are crying wolf.
I'll pass on the insults of the previous posts. I'm not negating any racism, you get carried away. Also " I don't care what is means in Sweden, Destiny isn't Swedish." Neither am I but sorry, didn't know the topic was reserved to Americans. We racists over here shouldn't be allowed to express our opinions about freedom of speech.
On May 31 2011 16:17 Zeri wrote: I think Destiny has a GIANT hole in his logic about his vocabulary and why he choses to use it.
Firstly, Destiny claims that he is honest and uncensored and therefore needs to use words like fuck, shit, rape, and nigger. Destiny claims that these words clearly have no substitute and to try and find one would be warping his intended meaning and being dishonest. I can understand and get behind this.
In the case of 'fuck' and 'shit' I 100% agree.
However, in his defense of his usage of the words 'rape' and 'nigger' Destiny claims that he is not using the words in their literal, real world meaning. And that people are being overly sensitive and unfair to be offended at his word choice. I think this argument clearly conflicts with his initial claim. Lets take the word rape for example:
Destiny says 'I raped that player' on his stream. Now by his first claim, there is no other phrase that could capture what Destiny did to his opponent and that trying to use other words would be dishonest as to what Destiny really intends. So Destiny intends the word rape, he believes there is no substitute. Words like subjugate, dominate, defeat, overcome, humiliate, 'blow out of the water' etc,... are not accurate descriptions of what Destiny did to his opponent.
So where does that leave us? The definition of rape. to forcefully make someone submit to your sexual will. But clearly this is offensive and not exactly what Destiny means by what he said. So by his second claim Destiny actually meant a different version of the word rape. He meant something along the lines of 'to exert complete and utter control or influence upon.' Now this is probably what Destiny meant. But this meaning clearly fits the words 'dominate' and 'subjugate' better than it does the word rape and this clearly brings up issues with Destiny's initial claim that he says what he intends for pure honesty. So why use the word rape? the only reason is to intentionally add a sexual connotation. Which people may find offensive and thus the argument that Destiny 'didn't mean it that way' is invalid by his first claim.
In summary: Destiny claims he says what he intends with no filter. He is purely honest. Therefore, the argument that his usage of words like rape and nigger, are being taken out of context and he does not mean their direct definitions is incorrect because if he doesn't mean their exact definitions, there are other words that more accurately describe what he is trying to portray and by his first claim he should use those other words instead. So the only explanation of using words like rape and nigger is to indeed attach all of their connotations intentionally.
I think your reasoning is interesting but I don't get the premise : why do you 100% agree that fuck and shit have no substitutes ? Since when is "fuck him" or "fuck her" (etc) such a noble image ?
If destiny believes that all words are hollow and have no intrinsic meaning then why does he specifically use the N word and rape? He could easily make up a word or use any other word out there, they all have no meaning according to him. That would make everyone happy if he really means what he said.
Yet to other people these words (specifically rape) may not physically rape someone, but mentally it will take that person back to a time and place where they were raped. His response to this is "to get over it". So he's basically victimizing all the rape victims out there? Its no different than how alot of our society victimizes gay people. Please don't blame the victims and then claim free speech.
On May 31 2011 16:17 Zeri wrote: I think Destiny has a GIANT hole in his logic about his vocabulary and why he choses to use it.
Firstly, Destiny claims that he is honest and uncensored and therefore needs to use words like fuck, shit, rape, and nigger. Destiny claims that these words clearly have no substitute and to try and find one would be warping his intended meaning and being dishonest. I can understand and get behind this.
In the case of 'fuck' and 'shit' I 100% agree.
However, in his defense of his usage of the words 'rape' and 'nigger' Destiny claims that he is not using the words in their literal, real world meaning. And that people are being overly sensitive and unfair to be offended at his word choice. I think this argument clearly conflicts with his initial claim. Lets take the word rape for example:
Destiny says 'I raped that player' on his stream. Now by his first claim, there is no other phrase that could capture what Destiny did to his opponent and that trying to use other words would be dishonest as to what Destiny really intends. So Destiny intends the word rape, he believes there is no substitute. Words like subjugate, dominate, defeat, overcome, humiliate, 'blow out of the water' etc,... are not accurate descriptions of what Destiny did to his opponent.
So where does that leave us? The definition of rape. to forcefully make someone submit to your sexual will. But clearly this is offensive and not exactly what Destiny means by what he said. So by his second claim Destiny actually meant a different version of the word rape. He meant something along the lines of 'to exert complete and utter control or influence upon.' Now this is probably what Destiny meant. But this meaning clearly fits the words 'dominate' and 'subjugate' better than it does the word rape and this clearly brings up issues with Destiny's initial claim that he says what he intends for pure honesty. So why use the word rape? the only reason is to intentionally add a sexual connotation. Which people may find offensive and thus the argument that Destiny 'didn't mean it that way' is invalid by his first claim.
In summary: Destiny claims he says what he intends with no filter. He is purely honest. Therefore, the argument that his usage of words like rape and nigger, are being taken out of context and he does not mean their direct definitions is incorrect because if he doesn't mean their exact definitions, there are other words that more accurately describe what he is trying to portray and by his first claim he should use those other words instead. So the only explanation of using words like rape and nigger is to indeed attach all of their connotations intentionally.
I think your reasoning is interesting but I don't get the premise : why do you 100% agree that fuck and shit have no substitutes ? Since when is "fuck him" or "fuck her" (etc) such a noble image ?
Well I agree that all words have no precise substitutes I guess what I was trying to say was that I agree with his literal usage of fuck and shit and he doesn't have to explain himself for using those words like he does with rape and nigger.
Sigh so much drama. Why take stuff so far? Has anyone actually asked a rape victim or a black person what they think about it? Or are you just "speaking in their name"?
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Oh wow, I just noticed this post and I said the same thing to you in the Casting Language Standards thread but if you don't think that raising kids it the responsibility of parents, then I think you're in the minority. The tools to protect your children if you want to are put in place, it's ultimately your responsibility to use them to keep your child away from stuff you don't want them exposed to. In this age, it's really stupid to attempt to remove all age-restrictive content because children may access it.
So no, I don't think it's a myth, it is a parents responsibility to raise their child...
Raising a child isnt only the responsibility of the parents, they have a big part to play, but they arent the "only ones to blame" if something goes wrong.
The realities are totally different from 50 years ago ... that is a fact. Because of this the parents cant do the same as they could wayback then because society has changed. How do you suppose a single parent who is raising his child on a minimum wage is going to take care of this responsibility? Such a parent cant pay someone to take care of the child during the important after-school hours ... so the kid is alone and educates itself alone (or among other similar kids).
It is also a fact that after the '68 revolution the average kid doesnt "respect" its parents as it used to and will do whatever it likes. I have had a young girl play WoW late in the evening even though she was forbidden to do it and should rather sleep for school the next day. The only way to take care of kids that way is to lock them up, but that isnt a great alternative.
So we have loads of time where "society" educates our children through TV, the internet or street lessons. Of course society has SOME PART to play in the education of our kids and since TV and so on are great at indoctrinating behaviour into our kids they are responsible for quite a large part. Right now they denying any responsibility and push all the responsibility on the parents, but thats too easy. As Peter Parker says in SpiderMan: With great power comes great responsibility and media have great power to influence people. The internet and SC2 casts are a media which isnt controlled by a huge company (yet) and thus the responsibility is there.
So yes, the parents have a big part of the responsibility of raising a child, but so does the rest of society in our world of multimedia.
On May 31 2011 20:52 Assirra wrote: Sigh so much drama. Why take stuff so far? Has anyone actually asked a rape victim or a black person what they think about it? Or are you just "speaking in their name"?
Do you want to wait untill a rape victim suicides because she watched an SC2 cast and the idiot caster threw around that word like candy? Its not about any specific word, its about the whole way of casting with foul words. All these aggressive words have substitutes, but the casters just want to be cool kids and use them ... because they dare!
Some might even try to use such scandals for publicity ... to get more viewers and make more money. Sex sells, but do we have to like that?
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Oh wow, I just noticed this post and I said the same thing to you in the Casting Language Standards thread but if you don't think that raising kids it the responsibility of parents, then I think you're in the minority. The tools to protect your children if you want to are put in place, it's ultimately your responsibility to use them to keep your child away from stuff you don't want them exposed to. In this age, it's really stupid to attempt to remove all age-restrictive content because children may access it.
So no, I don't think it's a myth, it is a parents responsibility to raise their child...
Raising a child isnt only the responsibility of the parents, they have a big part to play, but they arent the "only ones to blame" if something goes wrong.
The realities are totally different from 50 years ago ... that is a fact. Because of this the parents cant do the same as they could wayback then because society has changed. How do you suppose a single parent who is raising his child on a minimum wage is going to take care of this responsibility? Such a parent cant pay someone to take care of the child during the important after-school hours ... so the kid is alone and educates itself alone (or among other similar kids).
It is also a fact that after the '68 revolution the average kid doesnt "respect" its parents as it used to and will do whatever it likes. I have had a young girl play WoW late in the evening even though she was forbidden to do it and should rather sleep for school the next day. The only way to take care of kids that way is to lock them up, but that isnt a great alternative.
So we have loads of time where "society" educates our children through TV, the internet or street lessons. Of course society has SOME PART to play in the education of our kids and since TV and so on are great at indoctrinating behaviour into our kids they are responsible for quite a large part. Right now they denying any responsibility and push all the responsibility on the parents, but thats too easy. As Peter Parker says in SpiderMan: With great power comes great responsibility and media have great power to influence people. The internet and SC2 casts are a media which isnt controlled by a huge company (yet) and thus the responsibility is there.
So yes, the parents have a big part of the responsibility of raising a child, but so does the rest of society in our world of multimedia.
No, when the parent decided to have the kid, they made it their responsibility, if they did a shitty job it is not societies fault, but the parents fault for not assuming the responsibility. As of now, content producers can inform parents of the type of content so parents can figure out if their is something that the parents don't want their child to see.
Content producers as a whole have no reason to exclude the "lightning rod" words if it doesn't hurt their interests(viewer numbers). And you can't expect them too.
Parents know what the streams are now rated and what sort of content is on them, whats the issue? Because they work 2 jobs at minimum wage and don't have time to look at what website jimmies going to? So now its our responsibility that jimmy doesn't hear the word rape on a starcraft players stream? That's ridiculous if you think it true.
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Miniwheat was 6 feet away from DJWheat during that episode. I guess Destiny's child wasn't very far either. So chances are, provided they weren't busy surfing some KKK website, they heard plenty of foul words during that episode (and many others). From what you said, do I have to conclude that both Wheat and Destiny do not provide a decent education to their children ? Or ?
Also educating children IS the responsability of the parents (and of the school system). Even if both parents work. If they fail at it, it's sad but don't blame internet for it. Both my parents worked, I spent a LOT of time in front of the television when I was young, but my values are my parents' values and they're hopefully pretty decent, despite watching a lot of nasty stuff on TV back then (not telling them about it). I'm not saying it has no effect but I think it is marginal (with some exceptions). Might change my mind about it since I haven't seen studies about this so if you got some to prove your point, please share.
In a sense I am saying that djWheat doesnt provide a decent education, because on this episode he admitted himself that miniWheat has already learned that certain words are BAD, but why is it ok for daddy to use them then? Are those words only bad when used by kids? I hope thats not what djWheat thinks. If they are bad for everyone to use, then it is a double standard to keep on using them while miniWheat is watching and having double standards is a bad thing.
I mean why does Marcus teach his son that those words are bad and then continues to use them? Thats what I would call hypocrisy and the same applies to the different casting language to use for MLG / TSL or his "private" shows. I really am missing the point of How is a cast / show better through the use of "fuck", "rape", "nigger" ...? How do those words improve quality when they are BAD for kids?
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Oh wow, I just noticed this post and I said the same thing to you in the Casting Language Standards thread but if you don't think that raising kids it the responsibility of parents, then I think you're in the minority. The tools to protect your children if you want to are put in place, it's ultimately your responsibility to use them to keep your child away from stuff you don't want them exposed to. In this age, it's really stupid to attempt to remove all age-restrictive content because children may access it.
So no, I don't think it's a myth, it is a parents responsibility to raise their child...
Raising a child isnt only the responsibility of the parents, they have a big part to play, but they arent the "only ones to blame" if something goes wrong.
The realities are totally different from 50 years ago ... that is a fact. Because of this the parents cant do the same as they could wayback then because society has changed. How do you suppose a single parent who is raising his child on a minimum wage is going to take care of this responsibility? Such a parent cant pay someone to take care of the child during the important after-school hours ... so the kid is alone and educates itself alone (or among other similar kids).
It is also a fact that after the '68 revolution the average kid doesnt "respect" its parents as it used to and will do whatever it likes. I have had a young girl play WoW late in the evening even though she was forbidden to do it and should rather sleep for school the next day. The only way to take care of kids that way is to lock them up, but that isnt a great alternative.
So we have loads of time where "society" educates our children through TV, the internet or street lessons. Of course society has SOME PART to play in the education of our kids and since TV and so on are great at indoctrinating behaviour into our kids they are responsible for quite a large part. Right now they denying any responsibility and push all the responsibility on the parents, but thats too easy. As Peter Parker says in SpiderMan: With great power comes great responsibility and media have great power to influence people. The internet and SC2 casts are a media which isnt controlled by a huge company (yet) and thus the responsibility is there.
So yes, the parents have a big part of the responsibility of raising a child, but so does the rest of society in our world of multimedia.
No, when the parent decided to have the kid, they made it their responsibility, if they did a shitty job it is not societies fault, but the parents fault for not assuming the responsibility. As of now, content producers can inform parents of the type of content so parents can figure out if their is something that the parents don't want their child to see.
Content producers as a whole have no reason to exclude the "lightning rod" words if it doesn't hurt their interests(viewer numbers). And you can't expect them too.
Parents know what the streams are now rated and what sort of content is on them, whats the issue? Because they work 2 jobs at minimum wage and don't have time to look at what website jimmies going to? So now its our responsibility that jimmy doesn't hear the word rape on a starcraft players stream? That's ridiculous if you think it true.
Parents dont know what their kids are doing because they work to get enough money to clothe and feed their kids. This necessity has been created by the economic changes in the last few decades and the changes of our societies to have so many divorces ....
The only way to let parents stay in control is to make it illegal for children to use the internet or watch TV ... except under parental guidance.
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Miniwheat was 6 feet away from DJWheat during that episode. I guess Destiny's child wasn't very far either. So chances are, provided they weren't busy surfing some KKK website, they heard plenty of foul words during that episode (and many others). From what you said, do I have to conclude that both Wheat and Destiny do not provide a decent education to their children ? Or ?
Also educating children IS the responsability of the parents (and of the school system). Even if both parents work. If they fail at it, it's sad but don't blame internet for it. Both my parents worked, I spent a LOT of time in front of the television when I was young, but my values are my parents' values and they're hopefully pretty decent, despite watching a lot of nasty stuff on TV back then (not telling them about it). I'm not saying it has no effect but I think it is marginal (with some exceptions). Might change my mind about it since I haven't seen studies about this so if you got some to prove your point, please share.
In a sense I am saying that djWheat doesnt provide a decent education, because on this episode he admitted himself that miniWheat has already learned that certain words are BAD, but why is it ok for daddy to use them then? Are those words only bad when used by kids? I hope thats not what djWheat thinks. If they are bad for everyone to use, then it is a double standard to keep on using them while miniWheat is watching and having double standards is a bad thing.
I mean why does Marcus teach his son that those words are bad and then continues to use them? Thats what I would call hypocrisy and the same applies to the different casting language to use for MLG / TSL or his "private" shows. I really am missing the point of How is a cast / show better through the use of "fuck", "rape", "nigger" ...? How do those words improve quality when they are BAD for kids?
On May 31 2011 13:47 Rabiator wrote: There was another myth in the last episode as well and it goes like this: Educating / raising a child is the responsibility of the parents!
To this I say BOLLOCKS, we dont live in the 50s anymore where daddy left in the morning to go to work and earn money and mommy did cleaning, cooking and the care for the children. Todays society looks much different in that we have tons of SINGLE PARENTS who have to make money and go to work while raising some children and lots of families where BOTH PARENTS WORK. So the reality nowadays is that our teens are educating themselves after school nowadays. djWheat can work at home and take care of his son when he does his own shows, but I would guess miniWheat is experienced enough with the computer to "do his own thing" and he might stumble upon some stream or other eventually ...
I take my nieces to school every day on bike. There are other parents who take their children by car, but use the niche reserved for the bus to say good bye to their kids (while keeping the engine running) and sometimes there are so many of them that the bus cant get in there and has to stop somewhere else. These parents are giving a bad example to other kids and not only their own by ignoring rules in the full realization that they wont ever be punished for breaking them. Is that a good thing to learn for children? Nope.
So the reality now *should be* that all adults are responsible for the education of the next generation, because that is what our respective country will look like in 30 years. Does anyone really want to have people running around and using foul language? How about an american politician greeting a statesman from Africa in 30 years with a friendly "Yo Nigga, whats up?" Idols in our societies have to give good examples of how to behave and swearing / cursing casters dont do that! Our societies are supposed to evolve and not devolve into the stone age.
Oh and "the internet" is public ... worldwide (with the exception of certain restrictive countries) ... so "your channel on justin" isnt the same as talking in your own home. The argument of "you dont have to watch it" only applies to people who can make a fully conscious choice ... which any underage child is not.
Oh wow, I just noticed this post and I said the same thing to you in the Casting Language Standards thread but if you don't think that raising kids it the responsibility of parents, then I think you're in the minority. The tools to protect your children if you want to are put in place, it's ultimately your responsibility to use them to keep your child away from stuff you don't want them exposed to. In this age, it's really stupid to attempt to remove all age-restrictive content because children may access it.
So no, I don't think it's a myth, it is a parents responsibility to raise their child...
Raising a child isnt only the responsibility of the parents, they have a big part to play, but they arent the "only ones to blame" if something goes wrong.
The realities are totally different from 50 years ago ... that is a fact. Because of this the parents cant do the same as they could wayback then because society has changed. How do you suppose a single parent who is raising his child on a minimum wage is going to take care of this responsibility? Such a parent cant pay someone to take care of the child during the important after-school hours ... so the kid is alone and educates itself alone (or among other similar kids).
It is also a fact that after the '68 revolution the average kid doesnt "respect" its parents as it used to and will do whatever it likes. I have had a young girl play WoW late in the evening even though she was forbidden to do it and should rather sleep for school the next day. The only way to take care of kids that way is to lock them up, but that isnt a great alternative.
So we have loads of time where "society" educates our children through TV, the internet or street lessons. Of course society has SOME PART to play in the education of our kids and since TV and so on are great at indoctrinating behaviour into our kids they are responsible for quite a large part. Right now they denying any responsibility and push all the responsibility on the parents, but thats too easy. As Peter Parker says in SpiderMan: With great power comes great responsibility and media have great power to influence people. The internet and SC2 casts are a media which isnt controlled by a huge company (yet) and thus the responsibility is there.
So yes, the parents have a big part of the responsibility of raising a child, but so does the rest of society in our world of multimedia.
No, when the parent decided to have the kid, they made it their responsibility, if they did a shitty job it is not societies fault, but the parents fault for not assuming the responsibility. As of now, content producers can inform parents of the type of content so parents can figure out if their is something that the parents don't want their child to see.
Content producers as a whole have no reason to exclude the "lightning rod" words if it doesn't hurt their interests(viewer numbers). And you can't expect them too.
Parents know what the streams are now rated and what sort of content is on them, whats the issue? Because they work 2 jobs at minimum wage and don't have time to look at what website jimmies going to? So now its our responsibility that jimmy doesn't hear the word rape on a starcraft players stream? That's ridiculous if you think it true.
Parents dont know what their kids are doing because they work to get enough money to clothe and feed their kids.
words aren't "bad", trust me, none of my friends care when i say something like "I totally dominated and raped this guy" because they don't think that rape is a "bad" word. "rape" is just a word that will get you in trouble if you say it at the wrong time, like if your a kid at school talking your teacher. That is why they are called bad, but contextually they can be good or bad.
They are bad because you will get in trouble for using them at the wrong time that's it. And that can be applied to anything.
if i say "i had sex with your mother and i killed your child" to my boss, then I lost my job, but if i say god damnit this computer monitor doesn't work he wont give a flying shit.
also, no, they have tools to block websites and channels. hell, they could just not pay for TV and internet. I know several people that i used to go to high school with that didn't have internet at their home for the very reason that their parents didn't want them to see inappropriate things. They also have parental blocking tools that restrict websites and streams with minimal effort.The parents have the power, they just need to take the couple hours of their life to protect their child.
when i listened to the show i was really really listening to the guys and thinking, i even stoped browsing so i dont miss anything and then this random caller just started talking i laughed for about 2 minutes and had tears in my eyes. then i rewinded about 3 times to listen to it again xD lolololol
or when wheat and destiny agreed and were like "yea totally we agree man" incontrol comes in and just starts telling them basicly theyre idiots lololol.
and how chill just says nothing and then "ok i go thx b". like he is a main part of and just says nothing lolol.. ahh... the show had real good entertainment value.
On May 31 2011 20:52 Assirra wrote: Sigh so much drama. Why take stuff so far? Has anyone actually asked a rape victim or a black person what they think about it? Or are you just "speaking in their name"?
Do you want to wait untill a rape victim suicides because she watched an SC2 cast and the idiot caster threw around that word like candy? Its not about any specific word, its about the whole way of casting with foul words. All these aggressive words have substitutes, but the casters just want to be cool kids and use them ... because they dare!
Some might even try to use such scandals for publicity ... to get more viewers and make more money. Sex sells, but do we have to like that?
Again, you are talking in there place. Don't these ppl think of their own instead of you jumping and trying to protect them? Also, do you even know what you are saying. Because she heard in a game she does suicide? Sorry but then the problem is not the caster....
On May 31 2011 04:48 Neeh wrote: If you're offended by stuff, avoid it. Dont watch it and ignore it. He dosen't impose himself upon others, he offers a stream with harsh langauge, you chose to watch.
I dont get the big idea.
His shit is imposed on everyone who wants anything to do with SC2 community. Look at Teamliquid forums, look at /r/Starcraft, look anywhere, and you see stuff about Destiny popping up all the time. For some reason.
What you say might be true, but it doesn't follow from Neeh's argument. Destiny has no control over what other people do or say about him on TL or /r/starcraft, so whatever stuff about Destiny pops up is not him imposing himself on others.
On May 31 2011 17:05 Eurekastreet wrote: I think your reasoning is interesting but I don't get the premise : why do you 100% agree that fuck and shit have no substitutes ? Since when is "fuck him" or "fuck her" (etc) such a noble image ?
I didn't hear anyone arguing that "fuck" and "shit" are words that are hard to substitute.
Substitutes to some of the mentioned phrases are harder to substitute, in the same way that "I can't believe it's not butter" hardly is a substitute for butter.
On May 31 2011 10:30 ArgosDelta wrote: You guys are being incredibly hypocritical. The fanboyism towards incontrol is appalling. We are playing a game that is literally about killing other human beings or species. How is this okay but rape isnt? Really? You can murder someone but god forbid you call them a select word, that'll get you thrown in jail for years! Come on guys, we're better than this. If you want to take the moral highground stop playing the game about war, murder, oppression, genocide, racism, and terrorism.
Holy shit. This man presents an infallible argument. Until now, I thought we were just playing a video game, but it turns out we've been playing a murder, terrorism, and GENOCIDE simulator! Just by playing Starcraft, we've lost the right to be outraged by any crime that any human being commits, ever. Thought those Nazis at Nuremburg were bad? Well, it turns out you have no right to judge them. After all, you've killed just as many virtual people as they have!
Wait, let's take this even farther. We haven't just simulated virtual crimes in StarCraft. We've committed virtual acts of terror in just about every game we've ever played. Remember this monstrosity of a game?
That's right. According to ArgosDelta, anybody who's played this game is guilty of simulating innumerable acts of cruelty against animals. All of you who've played this game are guilty of committing genocide against turtles, giant moles, urchins, lotus flowers, and American football players.
Remember kids: next time you meet a PETA protestor, ask him if he played Super Mario World. If he did, tell him that he's a turtle-stomping, dinosaur-enslaving, animal-hating monster!
You are trying extremely hard to put words in his mouth. What were you even trying to say exactly? It is true we are playing a war simulator... by our current standards of society it is nothing, but that dose not make it anything else just because you posted some irrelevant video of Mario.
Another fail argument of "its part of a video game, so it doesn't matter". So if someone orally describes the death of a Marine in gory and violent a fashion as possible is that not acceptable either? But because its pixels on a screen it is 100% immune to any kind of criticism.
Your logic has so many holes in it, your post was pretty terrible to =/
Just to dumb down to your level for a minute, in Super Mario, Mario is actually just trying to save the princess, the turtles and shit are just getting in his way. Not exactly the same as a bitter struggle of survival between 3 species in full HD with blood and body parts. The ideas the game has about murder/terrorism/genocide are all very real and serious things in the world today. Millions of people across the world have been directly effected by these same issues. While I am not sure if people can relate to Bowser stealing princess Toadstool, or when Mario knocked out a turtle. Anyways /end rant on that.
Lol I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I was just having some fun with his ridiculous analogy. Other posters have already pointed out the absurdity of comparing Starcraft to a genocide simulator. But really, comparing the destruction of giant bugs, glowing aliens, and space humans to
Also, just to make the point clear: he argued that people are hypocritical for getting upset over rape jokes when we're playing (in his words) a "genocide simulator." All I did was take his twisted logic to its natural conclusion. If people aren't allowed to get upset about "rape" because they "simulated" genocide, then they can't be allowed to get upset about *anything* they've simulated in a video game. So that means anybody who's played GTA 4 can't get upset about prostitutes being murdered, and anybody who played Super Mario World can't get upset when a species of turtles faces extinction.
Yes, it is deeply offensive to compare the holocaust to the genocide occuring in the war simulator we play, just as it is deeply offensive to compare destiny saying "i raped that marine" with the actual act of rape. I'm sorry but you're appeal to ridicule is far from "logical".
On May 31 2011 17:05 Eurekastreet wrote: I think your reasoning is interesting but I don't get the premise : why do you 100% agree that fuck and shit have no substitutes ? Since when is "fuck him" or "fuck her" (etc) such a noble image ?
I didn't hear anyone arguing that "fuck" and "shit" are words that are hard to substitute.
Substitutes to some of the mentioned [i]phrases[/] are harder to substitute, in the same way that "I can't believe it's not butter" hardly is a substitute for butter.
Here [spoiler]
[/spoiler]is Billy Connolly being very relevant.
My point was not that they're hard or not to substitute, but instead I was asking why we should tolerate those words, and not others ? They may not be as offensive as the others mentioned, but who decides what's suitable and what's not is what I'm concerned about, and why...?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Nazi+Death+Camp1.jpg)
