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".
Lol what? What are you even saying? Are you saying now that Destiny's words ARE offensive? Just what the hell was your original point?
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...?
This argument can be extended to any event though, it's effectively the slippery slope argument and I don't think it's really applicable here. We as a collective decide and it's not like it's something ridiculously vague or hard to figure, as inControl did point out, there are some pretty clear-cut "lightning rod words". There are some points I consider somewhat valid in regards to this topic, but this isn't one of them, it's not that hard to draw the line...
As for Rabiator, your point of view is just utterly bizarre to me, yes you can't shield your kids from everything, but the only real solution to that would be making everything G-rated so that there's nothing your kid can go look at behind your back that you may not want them looking at. Just because you can't make sure your child isn't watching age-inappropriate content doesn't make it societies job to remove all age restrictive content so that everything is appropriate for them.
You've stated in other posts that, "Kids will seek out X-rated content even more", well what is your solution other than empowering the parents to police their children? Removing all age-restrictive content so that no one can access it?
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".
Lol what? What are you even saying? Are you saying now that Destiny's words ARE offensive? Just what the hell was your original point?
If you cannot comprehend my meaning from the posts we have already made, no reiteration of the points will help you. Reread everything quoted here enough and maybe eventually you will understand.
On May 31 2011 18:45 Chro wrote: If destiny believes that all words are hollow and have no intrinsic meaning then why does he specifically use the N word and rape?
You are putting words in the mouth of a person who is not present. I am disturbed that you don't see how indecent that is, especially considering your position.
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.
I included this part of your post for you to re-read it.
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.
Hnf? Please don't blame the victims and then claim free speech.
That is a reasonable appeal, but it is absurdly irrelevant.
I think one "get over it" is more helpful than 100 "omg he said rape let's shut him up to protect the raped".
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".
Lol what? What are you even saying? Are you saying now that Destiny's words ARE offensive? Just what the hell was your original point?
If you cannot comprehend my meaning from the posts we have already made, no reiteration of the points will help you. Reread everything quoted here enough and maybe eventually you will understand.
I can't understand your point because you've walked back on it. First, you ridiculed people who get offended by rape jokes by pointing out that we're playing a "genocide simulator." But then you conceded that the comparison between Starcraft and genocide is deeply offensive. So why bring it up in the first place?
Really, you're the one who came in here and acted like your "Starcraft is a genocide simulator!" argument was the end-all, be-all argument. Now that you've walked back on it, what exactly is your point? Because it sure looks like you don't have one.
On May 31 2011 06:43 Doodsmack wrote: Destiny: I think it's an insult to black people who were disparaged in the United States when somebody today claims the same offensiveness (...)
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(...)
Tell me, is this not the same argument, applied differently?
On May 31 2011 04:50 Doodsmack wrote: 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.
Rebuttals happen in court.
If you don't like cheap rhetorics, elevate yourself.
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"?
I think it is offensive to use slurs regardless of whether you are the target of the slur. Just because it doesn't directly effect me doesn't mean I think it is fine to promote openly hateful language just to be controversial.
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.
Your problem is that you think you are in control. That old style of parenting that relied on beating your children into submission and punishing them when they did wrong with no explanation is over. If you insist on "protecting" your children then teach them to protect themselves. I am not saying it is an easy thing to do but you have to realize that you can't possibly always be there. Earn the respect of your child and have them earn yours rather than always trying to demand submission. You don't need to lock your kid in a box to stop them from interacting but you do need to have some guidelines you mutually agree on so that you can both enforce them. This is all dependent on age as well but you should try as soon as you can to give them freedom without becoming a pushover. It seems like there is this prevailing idea that kids are stupid and can only understand force.
On May 31 2011 14:57 Doodsmack wrote: Do any of the Destiny fanboys in this thread agree with his position that a black person who wears $200 shoes shouldn't be offended by the word nigger? I'd love to hear an argument in favor of that one.
His words were more along the lines of black people who are obviously well off trying to say they feel the pain of random people 50+ years ago.
His direct implication was that the word nigger necessarily refers to black people of the 50s and 60s and carries no weight today. Thus black people in our "day of prosperity" (Destiny's words) who have money shouldn't be offended at all by the word nigger.
I felt like everyone made reasonable points but eventually INControl and Destiny got more and more extreme in their positions until they reached a dark place indeed and both came off very badly. I thought Chill was a bit immature just leaving the show as well.
Mostly I felt sorry for Wheat because all his shows are great and this was initially a good and interesting discussion before it got way out of hand.
Personally I never use racist or homophobic remarks in game or in real life but it doesn't put me off in game if people do, although I'd rather then didn't given a complete choice. In real life though those kind of words are completely unacceptable in my country. Any kind of 'non-offensive' swearing like the s, f, c words are fine though I have no problem with those, I guess it's all cultural.
On June 01 2011 06:57 wzzit wrote: I can't understand your point because you've walked back on it. First, you ridiculed people who get offended by rape jokes by pointing out that we're playing a "genocide simulator." But then you conceded that the comparison between Starcraft and genocide is deeply offensive. So why bring it up in the first place?
I followed the thread back a few pages, and found that someone was arguing that the act of
On June 01 2011 06:57 wzzit wrote: I can't understand your point because you've walked back on it. First, you ridiculed people who get offended by rape jokes by pointing out that we're playing a "genocide simulator." But then you conceded that the comparison between Starcraft and genocide is deeply offensive. So why bring it up in the first place?
I followed the thread back a few pages, and found that someone was arguing that the act of
* making jokes about rape
is not comparable to the act of
* forcing sexual intercourse
or encouraging the latter.
Yeah, but I don't think that was this guy's original point. He argued that nobody has the right to be offended by rape jokes because we're all playing murder/genocide simulators. Thus, nobody in this forum has the right to claim any kind of moral high ground. Like other posters, I pointed out the absurdity of this comparison - Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide - so this guy conceded the point but is still telling me that my logic sucks. What?
On June 01 2011 06:57 wzzit wrote: I can't understand your point because you've walked back on it. First, you ridiculed people who get offended by rape jokes by pointing out that we're playing a "genocide simulator." But then you conceded that the comparison between Starcraft and genocide is deeply offensive. So why bring it up in the first place?
I followed the thread back a few pages, and found that someone was arguing that the act of
* making jokes about rape
is not comparable to the act of
* forcing sexual intercourse
or encouraging the latter.
Yeah, but I don't think that was this guy's original point. He argued that nobody has the right to be offended by rape jokes because we're all playing murder/genocide simulators. Thus, nobody in this forum has the right to claim any kind of moral high ground. Like other posters, I pointed out the absurdity of this comparison - Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide - so this guy conceded the point but is still telling me that my logic sucks. What?
Did it never occur to you I was applying the logic used by the people who wish to censor streams? Using the logic that using a word like rape, even in context, is offensive to those who are raped, we must then look at how simulating murder and genocide, even in context, is offensive to those with murdered family members, dead children from violence, veterans who lost best friends in warfare, and refugees from war-torn nations. Obviously, though, we are not worried about this. Why is that do you suppose? It is because of the context.
You can't just say "Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide" without providing a valid argument for that. My argument is that it is like genocide, war, and terrorism for several reasons. 1. All 3 races have systematically murdered each other throughout the game's history in both the campaign and the multiplayer. 2. 100% of the game is focused on murdering agents of other cultures largely based on their race(species if you wish to call it by that.) 3. The protagonist of Wings of Liberty is a leader of a terrorist organization.
On June 01 2011 07:40 SlipperySnake wrote: I think it is offensive to use slurs regardless of whether you are the target of the slur. Just because it doesn't directly effect me doesn't mean I think it is fine to promote openly hateful language just to be controversial.
I will assume we have dispelled the idea that words, isolated, cannot be hateful or evil.
The words appear in dictionaries and encyclopedia, and I will assume that you don't think either are evil or hateful.
If you agree with that, and don't agree with encouraging the act of forcing sexual intercourse, it follows that the context in which the word appears is significant.
It is absurd to interpret the usage of rape as an analogy in
as hateful language, or as an encouragement to perform rape.
(It might be juvenile or distasteful. I think it's funny.)
On June 01 2011 07:56 Doodsmack wrote: His direct implication was that the word nigger necessarily refers to black people of the 50s and 60s and carries no weight today. Thus black people in our "day of prosperity" (Destiny's words) who have money shouldn't be offended at all by the word nigger.
Prosperity was Destiny's word, money wasn't mentioned.
On June 01 2011 08:08 wzzit wrote: Like other posters, I pointed out the absurdity of this comparison - Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide - so this guy conceded the point but is still telling me that my logic sucks. What?
Well, my conclusion is that analogies suck, as a tool to get a point across.
On June 01 2011 06:57 wzzit wrote: I can't understand your point because you've walked back on it. First, you ridiculed people who get offended by rape jokes by pointing out that we're playing a "genocide simulator." But then you conceded that the comparison between Starcraft and genocide is deeply offensive. So why bring it up in the first place?
I followed the thread back a few pages, and found that someone was arguing that the act of
* making jokes about rape
is not comparable to the act of
* forcing sexual intercourse
or encouraging the latter.
Yeah, but I don't think that was this guy's original point. He argued that nobody has the right to be offended by rape jokes because we're all playing murder/genocide simulators. Thus, nobody in this forum has the right to claim any kind of moral high ground. Like other posters, I pointed out the absurdity of this comparison - Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide - so this guy conceded the point but is still telling me that my logic sucks. What?
Did it never occur to you I was applying the logic used by the people who wish to censor streams? Using the logic that using a word like rape, even in context, is offensive to those who are raped, we must then look at how simulating murder and genocide, even in context, is offensive to those with murdered family members, dead children from violence, veterans who lost best friends in warfare, and refugees from war-torn nations. Obviously, though, we are not worried about this. Why is that do you suppose? It is because of the context.
You can't just say "Starcraft is NOTHING like genocide" without providing a valid argument for that. My argument is that it is like genocide, war, and terrorism for several reasons. 1. All 3 races have systematically murdered each other throughout the game's history in both the campaign and the multiplayer. 2. 100% of the game is focused on murdering agents of other cultures largely based on their race(species if you wish to call it by that.) 3. The protagonist of Wings of Liberty is a leader of a terrorist organization.
Okay, so first you say this:
If you want to take the moral highground stop playing the game about war, murder, oppression, genocide, racism, and terrorism.
And then you say this:
Yes, it is deeply offensive to compare the holocaust to the genocide occuring in the war simulator we play.
And now you're saying this:
My argument is that it is like genocide, war, and terrorism for several reasons.
So first, you claimed that Starcraft simulates genocide. Then, you concede that comparing Starcraft to ACTUAL genocide is highly offensive and inappropriate. Now, you're comparing Starcraft to genocide again. You contradict yourself so many times that it's getting pretty damn hard to figure out where you actually stand.
With regard to the rest of your post: your logic fails because your comparison between StarCraft and actual instances of genocide is ridiculous. Claiming that people who play a game that has little to no resemblance to reality are somehow implicitly endorsing genocide is a fantastically absurd argument.
The 3 races that are "systematically murdering each other" are giant bugs, aliens with psionic powers, and space marines. The people who have actually suffered from genocide in real life - Jews, Armenians, Bosnian Muslims, Rwandans, etc. - do not in any way resemble StarCraft's three races. Honestly, the races in The Lord of the Rings are more realistic than the species in StarCraft.
I'm going to stop here. I've wasted enough time on this argument. If you honestly think that StarCraft is comparable to genocide, then you have no comprehension of the magnitude of that word, and there's no point discussing things further.
EPT![[image loading]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Nazi+Death+Camp1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YxRb4bKbMI)
