|
First of all, many people here have to learn about objectivity. People have different opinions, and if you can't walk into a debate with an open mind and are unable to look at other perspectives... DON'T POST! You contribute nothing to a debate if you can't see both sides and are blindly spouting your beliefs.
With that out of the way, I don't see the issue here. Destiny's stream is his own private stream based solely on his own content. He is not casting public tournaments and using that kind of language, it is only his own content for his fans entertainment.
Think of it this way. Lets say there is a small public basketball league in some random town that has many players who act with poor behavior (they are offensive in some kind of way... maybe they keep saying that they raped the opposing team when they win). If a sports association (I will use the NBA for this example) has a representative who sees this public league, the representative cannot tell them how they should behave simply because they represent a major portion of the basketball community. They may insist that their league have many rules referring to behavior and conduct, but it is ridiculous to think they should go around demanding that other leagues do what the NBA wishes.
So in this analogy, the big association could be a big tournament like the NASL for example, or better yet Team Liquid (with the TSL and their large community). Yes TL can refuse to feature Destiny as a streamer if they feel it is an issue they have to address, just as the NBA may refuse to feature smaller public leagues, but they (TL) have no right to tell him to not stream or to not use that language. It is his own personal stream for him to do what he pleases with it. Why does anyone think that he is not entitled to do what he wants? Hopefully no one, and we can move on to the other points made.
"Well why can't he just not use those words?"
He chooses to use them and that is his human right... as a human.
"But this is going to make esports look bad! They will go to his stream and base their opinion of sc2 and esports off of it."
If anyone is not familiar with Michael Vick, he is an American Football player who went to jail for dog fighting. So the question is, how badly did he tarnish the image of competitive American Football? I would say not at all. Most people can separate a single person and their actions from an entire organization and community's actions. I don't see how that will be any different with sc2 or esports... and quite frankly if the few people who really don't have the brain capacity to differentiate come along, I don't think we can do much short of having everyone (and I mean everyone... which obviously won't happen) acting perfectly and polite if we are going to attract those kind of people.
The point I am getting at is that sc2 tournaments today are already censored and appropriate for the public (and if some aren't then yes we can focus on getting public tournaments to an appropriate level for the public, but that is a completely different discussion from a private stream) so we can already give a great image of competitive gaming to anyone who is new to sc2... and even if they see some complete rude obnoxious racist (I am not referring to anyone when I say that) that person won't tarnish the sc2 or esport name for everyone else. Does anyone disagree with that point? Please respond if you do. I just don't see how someone who watches and enjoys the IPL, the TSL, the GSL and the NASL, would then suddenly completely change their opinion of sc2 and esports after watching Destiny's stream.
"What about people who's first sc2 spectating experience is with Destiny?"
Well first of all the same argument can be made for people just hearing about (American) football (or any organization for that matter) for the first time, and starting with Michael Vick... it just might happen. At the same time however, assuming people who recommend people check out sc2 give good sources to the people they are recommencing it to, there won't be a problem... and this is already naturally happening. If I were to recommend sc2 to a family member like an Uncle, I wouldn't say "hey check out Destiny's stream." I would more likely recommend a tournament like the GSL. At the same time if I have a gamer friend who wants to watch very entertaining content who I know would like something like Destiny's stream, then I would recommend Destiny's stream.
To simplify, we all naturally recommend what we feel would be good content for the audience we are catering to. So long as we don't start randomly telling our Mom's to watch Destiny... it really shouldn't be a problem.
"But still there are some people who will read an interview like the Forbes article and not know where to start, so they will go to Destiny's stream."
Ya... you know what sometimes everything won't work out. I would like to even mention that most people would still understand that he is only a single person with his own unique personality... but you know what... even if I explain that, it won't matter. Things still won't be perfect... it is the unfortunate truth. Some people will simply see sc2 and not enjoy. Maybe it will be because of Destiny's personality too... but I don't see how this is a problem.
I think a much bigger problem would be forcing everyone to behave within certain boundaries therefore killing a lot of the interesting personalities such as Destiny who cater to an audience who would have no one else to go to if he too were to go within some predetermined boundaries. A similar argument was made (I believe by djWheat) who said that putting sc2 on TV can actually be a bad thing because then when you make it TV appropriate, the content then becomes worse for the hardcore viewer as many things need to be toned downed and altered for the mainstream audience. In fact they also made a mention similar to this on SOTG as well.
No matter what, not everything will work out perfectly. Sorry guys.
Well hopefully my post was clear. Unfortunately I'm not the best writer and I can't always express my ideas as well as I would like, but I'd definitely like for people to point out flaws in my argument (the major parts... not the insignificant parts) and hopefully approach my thoughts objectively.
Edit:
On June 03 2011 07:50 masterchip27 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:31 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:On June 03 2011 02:26 Dystisis wrote:On June 03 2011 02:24 turdburgler wrote:On June 02 2011 22:18 aquanda wrote:On June 02 2011 19:33 turdburgler wrote:On June 02 2011 19:02 aquanda wrote:
if anyone seriously believes fuck is on the same offensive level as nigger you're an idiot. as an internet neck beard virgin i find the idea of anyone having sex just as offensive as black skin, as i dont have either. hurr more seriously though, calling people an idiot for disagreeing with your baseless opinion is kinda ironic On June 02 2011 16:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Funny how many people on the Destiny side of teh debate like to pretend that nigga (said when addressing friends) and nigger are the same thing. thats destinys whole point though? wording is all about context and situation. it should be ok for destiny to say what he wants on his stream, within that context and setting its ok. Yah, because calling someone nigger really just means that you are simply telling someone that they have black skin. Thank you for calling yourself an idiot by replying to my statement. But you are the same person that trolled my earlier post though, so I'll just keep my statement at that, because it's obvious you are just here for your own personal amusement and nothing more. if you are arguing that nigger isnt just about the skin colour then its not a racial slur and should be considered equal to the word fuck. and i didnt troll your earlier post. the only thing your comment added was basically "LOL Y U ALL MAD" while being the only one foaming at the mouth in the whole thread. You're not that quick, are you? The word "nigger" is obviously used to denote a black person in a derogatory fashion; if it is used about something which is not a black person, but used in a derogatory fashion, it still denotes that being black is something of less value than otherwise by implication. If you honestly believe this, and other people in this thread do, I believe that every single one of you should be temp-banned for your next post if it doesn't include an explanation of how black people so freely use this word in rap music without disparaging their entire race every time the word is used. Please, do explain. I think it's pretty awesome that Destiny seems to have my same philosophical stance on language and has been vocal about it. (Thanks Destiny!) In short, the words we vocalize never have any "fixed" meaning throughout all the different contexts (and times) in which they are used. This is why a word like "retarded" can be used to describe somebody mentally ill, or just mean "stupid" without implying a slur towards mentally ill people (or mean stupid AND imply that slur)... When speaking to a large audience, we generally want to use language that doesn't risk implying a slur we don't imply, and language that doesn't arouse something unpleasant that we aren't referencing in some of the audience. Of course, that means we have to make a compromise. The important question is what compromises are we willing to take? Words like "rape" seem to have relatively clear implication when used -- that is, a) almost nobody thinks rape is O.K., and b) further in a lot of communities (that are well enough to spend time gaming) rape is pretty rare, so well, it seems more reasonable to say "rape" when describing a person beating another person badly in a game. How many of you noticed that "beating another person badly" is another example of language that has very different meanings in different contexts -- actually beating a person badly in literal terms is actually a pretty terrible thing to do. In my personal opinion, words like "gay" are in a different group. Currently many people view homosexuality as disgusting, or sinful, and there are lots of people who are actively hostile towards gay people. Therefore, it's a) not very easy to distinguish whether a person is condescending towards gay people or not when they use the term "gay" b) it is more likely to remind people of the hate that gay people receive. As such, I think it's less reasonable to use that words when speaking to a public audience that doesn't know you very well. I think the word "nigga" is more similar to the word "gay" than "rape" in the above analysis -- already in this thread it's obvious people find it hard to differentiate "nigga" in a lot of rap/hip-hop and "nigger", showing that a lot of people have a hard time grasping whether or not the "n-word" (whichever way you pronounce it) is condescending or not. Destiny says that on his private stream he'll be himself, but when representing another group while casting he'll be standardly civil, and I think that makes perfect sense -- his private stream is a place where he can express himself, and where people have time to realize he's actually not racist in any way (well, I hope not.) I know there are a lot of long posts on language, but I love talking about it and I'm hoping for the offchance that somebody reads this and finds it illuminating!
Well said. I was thinking of also writing something along these lines as well, but I couldn't quite express it all that well.
I do agree that context is very important. If a news reporter says "fuck" on air, many people may become furious, while if he says it amongst his friends it is likely no one will care whatsoever. I would say the same argument can be made for sc2. A caster may get a lot of flak for saying "fuck" in a major tournament, but if they then say it on their personal stream afterwards, it isn't a big deal.
|
On June 03 2011 02:31 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:26 Dystisis wrote:On June 03 2011 02:24 turdburgler wrote:On June 02 2011 22:18 aquanda wrote:On June 02 2011 19:33 turdburgler wrote:On June 02 2011 19:02 aquanda wrote:
if anyone seriously believes fuck is on the same offensive level as nigger you're an idiot. as an internet neck beard virgin i find the idea of anyone having sex just as offensive as black skin, as i dont have either. hurr more seriously though, calling people an idiot for disagreeing with your baseless opinion is kinda ironic On June 02 2011 16:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Funny how many people on the Destiny side of teh debate like to pretend that nigga (said when addressing friends) and nigger are the same thing. thats destinys whole point though? wording is all about context and situation. it should be ok for destiny to say what he wants on his stream, within that context and setting its ok. Yah, because calling someone nigger really just means that you are simply telling someone that they have black skin. Thank you for calling yourself an idiot by replying to my statement. But you are the same person that trolled my earlier post though, so I'll just keep my statement at that, because it's obvious you are just here for your own personal amusement and nothing more. if you are arguing that nigger isnt just about the skin colour then its not a racial slur and should be considered equal to the word fuck. and i didnt troll your earlier post. the only thing your comment added was basically "LOL Y U ALL MAD" while being the only one foaming at the mouth in the whole thread. You're not that quick, are you? The word "nigger" is obviously used to denote a black person in a derogatory fashion; if it is used about something which is not a black person, but used in a derogatory fashion, it still denotes that being black is something of less value than otherwise by implication. If you honestly believe this, and other people in this thread do, I believe that every single one of you should be temp-banned for your next post if it doesn't include an explanation of how black people so freely use this word in rap music without disparaging their entire race every time the word is used. Please, do explain.
I think it's pretty awesome that Destiny seems to have my same philosophical stance on language and has been vocal about it. (Thanks Destiny!)
In short, the words we vocalize never have any "fixed" meaning throughout all the different contexts (and times) in which they are used. This is why a word like "retarded" can be used to describe somebody mentally ill, or just mean "stupid" without implying a slur towards mentally ill people (or mean stupid AND imply that slur)...
When speaking to a large audience that doesn't know us personally, it's more likely we'll want to generally use language that doesn't risk implying a slur we don't imply, and language that doesn't arouse something unpleasant that we aren't referencing. Of course, that means we have to make a compromise between our freedom of expression and being non-offensive.
The important question is what compromises are we willing to take? Like Destiny said, many commonplace words (like "nuke") are likely to be offensive to somebody out there.
Words like "rape" seem to have relatively clear implication when used -- that is, a) almost nobody thinks rape is O.K., and b) further in a lot of communities (that are well off enough to spend time gaming) rape is pretty rare, so it's unlikely to remind people of rape that occurs, and so it seems more reasonable to say "rape" when describing a person beating another person badly in a game. How many of you noticed that "beating another person badly" is another example of language that has very different meanings in different contexts -- actually beating a person badly in literal terms is actually a pretty terrible thing to do.
In my personal opinion, words like "gay" are in a different group. Currently many people view homosexuality as disgusting, or sinful, and there are lots of people who are actively hostile towards gay people. Therefore, it's a) not very easy to distinguish whether a person is condescending towards gay people or not when they use the term "gay" b) it is more likely to remind people of the hate that gay people receive. As such, I think it's less reasonable to use that word when speaking to a public audience that doesn't know you very well.
I think the word "nigga" is more similar to the word "gay" than "rape" in the above analysis -- already in this thread it's obvious that people find it hard to differentiate "nigga" in a lot of rap/hip-hop and "nigger", showing that a) a lot of people have a hard time grasping whether or not the "n-word" (whichever way you pronounce it) is condescending or not. Further I know some people who are pretty sensitive about the use of the word, so b) it's more likely remind people of both past and ongoing disparity between black people and white people.
Destiny says that on his private stream he'll be himself, but when representing another group while casting he'll be standardly civil, and I think that makes perfect sense -- his private stream is a place where he naturally values expressing himself, and where people have time to realize he's actually not racist in any way (well, I hope not.)
I know there are a lot of long posts on language, but I love talking about it and I'm hoping for the offchance that somebody reads this and finds it illuminating!
|
Content aside, comparing Destiny to Michael Vick isn't exactly flattering or helpful for his case. MV is the last person the NFL wants representing them but they can't avoid his spotlight because he is an amazing player. Destiny is not as good in SC2 as MV is in Football.
|
In short, the words we vocalize never have any "fixed" meaning throughout all the different contexts (and times) in which they are used. This is why a word like "retarded" can be used to describe somebody mentally ill, or just mean "stupid" without implying a slur towards mentally ill people (or mean stupid AND imply that slur)...
That is quite simply incorrect, if what you say was the case, communication would be impossible. We would never be able to hold anyone at fault with their language, and we would never be able to understand what anyone else means.
"Retard" is a word used derogatorily to denote people with learning disabilities. If you use it to refer to something having less worth you imply that having learning disabilities is something worth less than not. In fact, you probably know that already, if you are at all familiar with ordinary English. You simply wish to cling to your own language use. You have that right, but then I have the right to call you a fucking idiot.
|
On June 03 2011 08:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Content aside, comparing Destiny to Michael Vick isn't exactly flattering or helpful for his case. MV is the last person the NFL wants representing them but they can't avoid his spotlight because he is an amazing player. Destiny is not as good in SC2 as MV is in Football.
Ya at the end I asked that people respond only to the significant parts of my argument. I knew someone would try to dissect a specific part. The point is, both are considered to be a bad representation of the community they represent by many people.
And before I see...
"WHAT?!?!!? ARE YOU SAYING DESTINY IS JUST AS BAD OF A PERSON AS MICHAEL VICK?!?!?!?!?!?!/1/1/1/1/1/1/"
No, not at all.
Now... can we move onto the more general and relevant points I made... not something so specific?
|
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
|
On June 03 2011 08:16 Dystisis wrote:Show nested quote +In short, the words we vocalize never have any "fixed" meaning throughout all the different contexts (and times) in which they are used. This is why a word like "retarded" can be used to describe somebody mentally ill, or just mean "stupid" without implying a slur towards mentally ill people (or mean stupid AND imply that slur)... That is quite simply incorrect, if what you say was the case, communication would be impossible. We would never be able to hold anyone at fault with their language, and we would never be able to understand what anyone else means. "Retard" is a word used derogatorily to denote people with learning disabilities. If you use it to refer to something having less worth you imply that having learning disabilities is something worth less than not. In fact, you probably know that already, if you are at all familiar with ordinary English. You simply wish to cling to your own language use. You have that right, but then I have the right to call you a fucking idiot.
1) Notice how words in the dictionary both sometimes have multiple different definitions, and how new definitions of words arise over time and in different dictionaries. This example suffices to show that clearly some given words have different meaning in different contexts.
On dictionary.com:
retard –noun
3. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4. Slang: Disparaging.
a. a mentally retarded person.
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
2) However what you say does point to an interesting point. If you've ever read anything on postmodernism and language, the idea is that ultimately there is no objective way to define any word. But what's missing (and why people think postmodernism is stupid) is that while we may never have an absolute perfect conception of what a word means, we can get close enough to communicate.
For example, how would you define a chair? The immediate response is "Something with four legs that you can sit on." A follow up question would be "Is a horse a chair?", demonstrating your definition inadequate, and you would probably say no, and refine the definition further. Now that last question was pretty retarded (ha), but my point is that two people might legitimately disagree on what constitutes a chair -- some people might think a stool a is a chair, some might not. But just because we can't agree on what a "chair" is objectively defined as doesn't mean we can't generally use the word "chair" without confusion. Like, so yeah there may not be an objective definition and once in a while there may confusion about what "chair" refers to but most of the time, there isn't a problem. Maybe "chair" seems so commonplace and obvious that my entire train of logic seems false, but think about more controversial words such as "love", and hopefully you see my point.
3) All this might just be you misunderstanding my post. I did NOT say language "never has any fixed meaning", I said it does not have the SAME fixed meaning in ALL or EVERY SINGLE ONE of the various different situations/contexts/times it is used in. Language does have localized fixed meaning. (For example, if we agree that on what a chair is except that I think a stool is a chair, and there is no stool in the room and I tell you to sit in the chair, that's a localized fixed meaning. Or if we both don't really know exactly how we define "chair" but we both think the seating device in my room is a chair, that's probably a fixed local meaning.)
tldr; Words are never always objectively offensive, it depends on context. Just because the meaning of a word depends on its context and does not mean we cannot communicate, we can still communicate well when we figure out how other people are interpreting the word.
|
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
|
On June 03 2011 09:20 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead. I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling." Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
|
On June 03 2011 04:33 leova wrote:
that's some pretty obvious racism right there - i can say something but you can't?
all these arguments do is just perpetuate the "black people are different from white people" theory - where, actually, the only difference is skin color
\
You can certainly say whatever you want. But don't expect people to not interpret your use of the word nigger differently, based on your identity.
For example, I know a lot of people that use the word Nazi casually -- as in, "My boss is making me rewrite this report, what a Nazi."
I can guarantee you that if you went to Germany, and called someone there a Nazi, or joked about Nazi's, they would not only be offended, but they would think you were a fool that trivialized the darkest and most regretful era in Germany's history.
Or how about a more light-hearted example? If George Burns and Kim Kardasian both said, "I could go for a nice, long cigar right now," wouldn't you interpret both statements differently?
How about this: if Destiny is just 'keeping it real', and it is so important to him to use the word nigger to express himself, I would be willing to pay him to tape himself calling a black stranger on the street nigger. Like, "Yo nigger, what's up!" It's just a word, right? He doesn't mean anything malicious by it. No big deal, right?
|
Intent doesn't really matter in communication. Context does yes, but intent has nothing to do with context.
And in context Steven Bonnell is a straight white guy who likes calling people faggot niggers when he gets angry.
He's free to be himself but it's ridiculous to pretend there's any kind of defensible intellectual purpose there.
|
iNcontrol's argument essentially has two premises:
- Streamers have a responsibility to further the success of e-sports
- Their use of coarse language is detrimental to the success of e-sports
The first premise is a normative statement of how streamers should behave, while the second is an empirical statement about the effect of coarse language.
There is no doubt that some people get offended by some of the language that some streamers use. There is also no doubt, however, that some people enjoy coarse language. Does it produce more value for the community to serve one of these niches, or both? It is clear that if they can both be served independently, that this would bring more value to more people. The interesting question is whether or not they can be served independently. Do casters with foul language benefit their viewers at the expense of other niches in the community? Likely. But more importantly, does the coarse language benefit the community? This requires a difficult cost-benefit analysis to answer.
However, if we want to do what is best for the community, the goal should be to serve as many niches as independently as possible. Rather than trying to impose standards on streamers so that they appeal to more people, we ought to be trying to make it easier for people to find the content that suits their personal tastes as fast as possible, so that more people can find what they like.
|
On June 03 2011 08:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Content aside, comparing Destiny to Michael Vick isn't exactly flattering or helpful for his case. MV is the last person the NFL wants representing them but they can't avoid his spotlight because he is an amazing player. Destiny is not as good in SC2 as MV is in Football.
What're you talking about? The comparison might not be flattering, but it's certainly accurate. MV is INCREDIBLY popular despite his missteps, just like Destiny is INCREDIBLY popular despite his controversy. Yeah MV might be better at football than Destiny is at Starcraft, but that's just missing the point of the comparison.
|
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I read a post once that discussed how in certain communities, such as maybe some poor urban black communities, speaking in "eloquent" language is interpreted as "acting white" and comes off as pretentious and can even be offensive to other people in that community. Jussayin, context..
|
On June 03 2011 09:27 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 09:20 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead. I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling." Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable. so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened. and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence. ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped."
2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
Edit: 3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/unendingly/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
|
Tuned into SotG to listen to pro players talk about the GAME.
I realise it was a sending off episode for Geoff, but honestly I did not want to hear Leah or Lea or Laya or whoever she is repeat herself for 20 minutes.
Did tyler even speak more than a paragraph that show? I doubt it.
Talked to alot of my friends and they feel similar, most turned it off during the "How to talk on your stream" part, I mean honestly people who barely know starcraft do not watch Destiny's stream, they watch MLG, or other profesional tournaments, where this is not an issue, so that just felt like a time sink.
Also, what exactly is Geoff doing that depraves him of spending an hour once a week talking?
Hope next time SotG comes around you go back to the roots JP with the subjects
|
On June 03 2011 09:55 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 09:27 turdburgler wrote:On June 03 2011 09:20 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead. I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling." Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable. so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened. and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence. ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job. Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear: 1. "That zerg player got raped."
2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll. Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes.
The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
|
For the Louis CK fans out there.
Here's a hilarious clip of his show, Louis (written and directed by CK, mind you) discussing the casual use of the word 'faggot'.
Kind of sums up the sentiments of lot of people in here.
The Poker Scene
|
On June 03 2011 10:13 masterchip27 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 09:55 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 03 2011 09:27 turdburgler wrote:On June 03 2011 09:20 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote:
I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words.
How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead. I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling." Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable. so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened. and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence. ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job. Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear: 1. "That zerg player got raped."
2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll. Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
There's a whole lot of emphatic words besides "rape" that are fine to use and don't trivialize rape/rape victims/don't evince a misogynistic outlook
|
On June 03 2011 10:22 Defacer wrote:For the Louis CK fans out there. Here's a hilarious clip of his show, Louis (written and directed by CK, mind you) discussing the casual use of the word 'faggot'. Kind of sums up the sentiments of lot of people in here. The Poker Scene
Bonus points for the cinematography that implies casually throwing 'nigger' around is problematic for similar reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
