Just watched state of the game EP41 and an amazing show as always. Good work. We are gonna miss Incontrol's bright and well-thought comments.
I do have one comment. I think the community is better and more responsible than the impression you gave. If I go back and look at some of Anna's miss Oregon threads, all I see is "concratz" and love from the community. Of course there are exceptions but this is to be expected since there are young as well as old people playing this game. Idra, take a look at your fansite. Most of the people are fan of you, not for the drama, but because they like your style of playing, just saying. Sane fans do exist.
Has there been an updated full video podcast? The one I got cuts off slightly after Destiny comes on - trying to be wary with my limited bandwidth. Thanks!
I think it was in the last SotG that JP said that he had an interview at the HotS release. This interview was a lot about the multiplayer if I remember correctly, and JP said that it would be shown at MLG. I didnt see the interview and I am unable to find it on the MLG site Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated
On June 07 2011 22:45 Deckkie wrote: I think it was in the last SotG that JP said that he had an interview at the HotS release. This interview was a lot about the multiplayer if I remember correctly, and JP said that it would be shown at MLG. I didnt see the interview and I am unable to find it on the MLG site Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated
I saw the interview, it was shown near the end, between two series.
The interview was about the single player, with one of the writer of the story, I don't think it had any multiplayer elements, atleast the one interview I saw. I don't have the link.
On June 07 2011 22:45 Deckkie wrote: I think it was in the last SotG that JP said that he had an interview at the HotS release. This interview was a lot about the multiplayer if I remember correctly, and JP said that it would be shown at MLG. I didnt see the interview and I am unable to find it on the MLG site Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated
I saw the interview, it was shown near the end, between two series.
The interview was about the single player, with one of the writer of the story, I don't think it had any multiplayer elements, atleast the one interview I saw. I don't have the link.
through the whole word debate I was waiting for someone to make a trolling free speech comment like
"why do you hate America"
"In America we say what we want, you dont like it you can geeeet out!"
But in reality its a free speech issue. As long as the context and intent are good, then the word doesn't matter at all. I thought using snipe and nuke as examples of how stupid it would be to censor rape was spot on. We either have freedom of speech or we dont, there is no middle ground.
People should censor themselves if it fits their goals, but you should never try to sensor others, unless you hate America of course =p
On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote: Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin.
Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution.
If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
On June 08 2011 00:22 Warlike Prince wrote: through the whole word debate I was waiting for someone to make a trolling free speech comment like
"why do you hate America"
"In America we say what we want, you dont like it you can geeeet out!"
But in reality its a free speech issue. As long as the context and intent are good, then the word doesn't matter at all. I thought using snipe and nuke as examples of how stupid it would be to censor rape was spot on. We either have freedom of speech or we dont, there is no middle ground.
People should censor themselves if it fits their goals, but you should never try to sensor others, unless you hate America of course =p
Thats just nonsense which can only be explained by inexperience.
For ANYTHING YOU SAY it is very very very important how you present the message and the words are part of this presentation. Anything else is just wishful thinking and thus the words are important. So if you use aggressive words or phrases you ARE AGGRESSIVE no matter what you say. For some neighborhoods it might be acceptable / expected to use such "fake" aggression, but thats about it. You notice the word SOME, right?
It is also part of everyones culture - which youth is always trying to break - which words are acceptable and which arent. Ever since the 60s and James Deans days as a rebel were gone and the "revolution of the youth" tore down most of the social restrictions of what you should do and what you shouldnt do in your society, have words been one of the last areas where the kids are doing their rebel thing. Well the fact of the matter and freedom of speech and such is that you are still responsible for anything your words cause. If you are an asshole who preaches violence you can do so, but you are still responsible for the riots. While there is no one who does anything that radical in the SC2 community it is still bad to use those swear words and aggressive phrases excessively, because they stir up violence in the listeners. This violence could carry on to the forums and thus influence the community in a bad way.
So yeah, feel free and be the rebel you want to be. You are still responsible and if you talk like shit and your viewers mimic you to be as cool as you then you are responsible if they get beaten up by someone who doesnt understand that the word nigger wasnt intended as an insult. Its a bit hard to fall back onto that usual "oh it was meant as a joke" excuse of too many people who chose their words poorly / too aggressively. Jokes and sarcasm and irony and such never work on a forum unless you clearly mark them as such. Many of the unmarked ones get misunderstood and the same holds true for aggressive words.
On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote: Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin.
Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution.
If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
Dude: good answer!
This is absolutely spot on. Catharsis may be more healthy than repression, but looking at a situation objectively and not need that catharsis is much more productive.
On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote: Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin.
Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution.
If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
Tyler your such a well learned nerd baller! Very impressive conversation from both sides I learned a lot from that little exchange. Now show me another community out there that's not in the sciences realm that converse regular like that on such advanced topics....none! TL you da man.
On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote: Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin.
Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution.
If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
Can you really remove emotions like anger, especially after an important loss for example? What about things like adrenaline that is designed to influence the body in a certain way. You can learn to ignore it but there is no way to remove it , is it? The conscious mind as it is defined by Freud should analyze the reasons for anger, but there is no way to just " turn it of" . You can be aware to a certain extend, but not even the Freud thought in the end of his life that you can truly find every motive for a certain type of behavior.
I just... really, really, really like Sundance, and his approach to pretty much everything. He seems very smart, honest, and realistic. He also seems to have incredibly good intentions.
I'm gone from this thread, sorry. Some of you are attempting to make coherent arguments, as there ARE valid arguments against what I'm saying, but most of you are uttering absolute non-sense with absolutely no valid or rational backings to whatever you're saying. Posters like the one I've quoted are literally destroying this planet with their sheepish attitudes and immature views of the world.
They're not literally destroying the planet. They might be making it a little more boring.
And I'm sorry, but a lot of those artists and comedians you referred to used these 'controversial' words as part of an narrative, and usually to make a greater point about language, politics and social conformity. You typically use these words to vent, which is also immature.
I respectfully must insist there is a difference.
Actually its the people who use aggressive language who are destroying our cultures / societies / world. You cant have physical aggression without a thought, and thoughts are formed with words and the images connected to them. Since there is no more "unsettled Wild West" to emigrate to when you have a problem with your neighbor and the human population is exploding everywhere, we have to learn to live together peacefully OR accept an increase in violence in our communities. Your choice, but it all starts with words.
Nigger is an aggressive word. Shut the fuck up is an aggressive phrase.
People who consciously choose to use them are accepting the responsibility for the violence which follows ... eventually ... through other people trying to be cool as X and using those words just the way they learned it. Saying "I was joking" is a bit hard after being seriously injured by someone who misunderstood the use of that offensive word. Obviously there is the "carte blanche self-defense" of those public figures who taught others the use of those words that it isnt their responsibility to educate them, but thats a fake excuse. Everyone of us shapes the world around us and life isnt a video game which you can switch and have no repercussions from the stupid stuff you just did in the other game.
It is also extremely idiotic to reduce the english language to just a handful of insults. There are soo many creative uses of swearing and insulting in the literature that it is a shame just to use "fuck" all the time.
There is no aggresion without though and thoughts are formed with words, really? As in, mute people are incapable of violence?
Words are nothing without context. And context is what people must learn to understand. Obviously when someone is writing a murder novel, they aren't being irresponsible to the community at large because they might give an already damaged individual an idea.
And lastly, how much more hypocritical can you get? The english language has so many insults so lets use them instead of "fuck"? Are you serious? So, you wouldn't be offended by a bigot bashing a black persion, but just as long as he doesn't use the "n-word" and is generaly eloquent and plesant sounding about it? If this is the case, then you deserve nothing short than a heartfealt "fuck you".
And btw, that "moving to the Wild West" to avoid voilence with your neighbour is just wrong on so many levels, but I, from context, understand that you meant no harm and/or disrespect but was trying to push a point accross. Right?
Hello
You don't know what Hypocritical means. Let me take this chance to educate at least one more person to not use one of the most commonly misused words incorrectly.
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:
"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself"
Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.
Rabiator could have the full intentions of not wanting to use agressive words, but cannot because sometimes people act without thinking, or something like that.
On June 08 2011 00:22 Warlike Prince wrote: through the whole word debate I was waiting for someone to make a trolling free speech comment like
"why do you hate America"
"In America we say what we want, you dont like it you can geeeet out!"
But in reality its a free speech issue. As long as the context and intent are good, then the word doesn't matter at all. I thought using snipe and nuke as examples of how stupid it would be to censor rape was spot on. We either have freedom of speech or we dont, there is no middle ground.
People should censor themselves if it fits their goals, but you should never try to sensor others, unless you hate America of course =p
I'm not quite on the "censor" side of things (I thought Destiny made some points, and I thought some of iNcontroL's points weren't very valid), but I don't agree with this at all. Everything has a middle ground. There is almost nothing that is complete one side or the other.
People like to say "free speech", but free speech doesn't mean the freedom to say anything you want. There's no freedom to incite hatred in most countries, to use one example. That's neither complete freedom of speech nor a lack of freedom of speech, so your statement is already wrong.
Obviously nothing like "inciting hatred" is happening in SC2, but it's a debate about language. And some words aren't suitable. I don't believe that private streams like Destiny's need to be censored, at least not before they are significantly worse than Destiny is now, but that line does exist.
Personally I don't like the usage of the n word. I know Destiny sometimes uses it, and it makes me less likely to watch his stream (though I still do sometimes). I don't really have a problem with the word rape, and that is one place where I think iNcontroL was wrong.
On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote: Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin.
Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution.
If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
Can you really remove emotions like anger, especially after an important loss for example? What about things like adrenaline that is designed to influence the body in a certain way. You can learn to ignore it but there is no way to remove it , is it? The conscious mind as it is defined by Freud should analyze the reasons for anger, but there is no way to just " turn it of" . You can be aware to a certain extend, but not even the Freud thought in the end of his life that you can truly find every motive for a certain type of behavior.
I don't think you can turn off you emotions. But you can control what you do with them. It's about being able to put things in perspective.
I've been angry at my job, but handled it in such a way that I was offered a raise. But I've seen guys literally flip off their bosses, or go on angry tirades, and basically throw away any shred of legitimacy and diginity they had.
On June 08 2011 00:22 Warlike Prince wrote: through the whole word debate I was waiting for someone to make a trolling free speech comment like
"why do you hate America"
"In America we say what we want, you dont like it you can geeeet out!"
But in reality its a free speech issue. As long as the context and intent are good, then the word doesn't matter at all. I thought using snipe and nuke as examples of how stupid it would be to censor rape was spot on. We either have freedom of speech or we dont, there is no middle ground.
People should censor themselves if it fits their goals, but you should never try to sensor others, unless you hate America of course =p
I'm not quite on the "censor" side of things (I thought Destiny made some points, and I thought some of iNcontroL's points weren't very valid), but I don't agree with this at all. Everything has a middle ground. There is almost nothing that is complete one side or the other.
People like to say "free speech", but free speech doesn't mean the freedom to say anything you want. There's no freedom to incite hatred in most countries, to use one example. That's neither complete freedom of speech nor a lack of freedom of speech, so your statement is already wrong.
Obviously nothing like "inciting hatred" is happening in SC2, but it's a debate about language. And some words aren't suitable. I don't believe that private streams like Destiny's need to be censored, at least not before they are significantly worse than Destiny is now, but that line does exist.
Personally I don't like the usage of the n word. I know Destiny sometimes uses it, and it makes me less likely to watch his stream (though I still do sometimes). I don't really have a problem with the word rape, and that is one place where I think iNcontroL was wrong.
Of course you cant say you are going to kill or hurt someone. But were not talking about most countries anyway, were talking about America. In America you can join the KKK and teach your kids to hate people just because of the color of their skin. You can also march down the street to let the world know you are a racist and proud of it. The KKK is actually one of the main points people use against free speech, and IMO is a much more compelling argument for censorship then the fact that a word may or may not offend someone who can just choose not to listen.
I really cant believe so many people have a problem with someone using vulgar language on a stream with a language warning.
You say that a line does exist, that if crossed, censorship would be needed. Please tell me who decides where that line is? There is no line with language, the line is in context and intent.
EPT
Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated 
