On October 16 2012 08:01 Killscreen wrote: Self validating external sense? What are you smoking? ( pm me )
What we are looking for is a logical reason for why Stefano was wrong. What was ethically wrong about what he did, and what would be the consequences if it went unpunished?
lol.
well, what I was arguing from there would be the meta-ethical view that there are no actual moral facts about the world. Ontological nihilism is the term used to describe such a view. Then we have various theories on semantics... The one I often favour is called emotivism and its basically the idea that valuestatements (such as in morality) do not express propositions but rather attitudes of the speaker, that is emotional attitudes. I do not think that this always is the case as I do believe we often speak and think about morality as if our moral judgements are actual facts about the world (which of course they are not, there are no moral facts just as there are no aesthetic objective facts), and this jumping back and forth between meaning different things yet using the same words certainly adds to the confusion.
Logical reason? Im not sure what you mean by logic here. What was ethically wrong? Well I suppose I could argue many things if I wanted to, but lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing. The consequences if it went unpunished? well thats pretty obvious isnt it? He would be none the wiser, and would probably rapejoke all his way to the bank ^^
So this bit would be morally wrong then?
Philosophical ethics discussions aside, lets remember that this is about what was said, not done, which makes it a lot simpler. For me to say it was wrong it would have had to caused a harm to other people, and he had to have known that when he said it. The guy who posted the mohammed video a month back was wrong for instance.
first you cant compare a comedian to stephano since there are two separate languagegames going on there. Second Ricky Gervais is not saying anything that is at all analogous to saying you (sexually) abused a 14-year old the other day (ha ha ha, end of joke), so that has no bearing here either way (though I assume you could perhaps find some comedian making personal rapejokes somewhere). Third Ricky Gervais is actually funny, I wonder if anyone in here whos over 20 actually thought stephano said something funny. The actual pics of bling with his reaction when he realized he was streaming is quite hilarious however.
What makes you so sure it didnt cause any harm? Im also not so sure that simply because something causes harm it is immoral either. Killing Hitler caused him a great deal of harm I suppose.
So rape jokes are ok if and only if 1. The victim is older than 18. 2. The joke is funny 3. The person telling the joke is not the rapist in the joke.
Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Stefano went 0/3. No wonder you guys are calling for blood.
Well if you wish to make a silly list based on what I said it would be the other way around wouldnt it. Rape jokes are not ok if: a,b,c,d... Of course its arbitrary! But that is in part because youre using "ok" in a very vague manner. After all, hes free to make whatever jokes he wants, but Im also free to dislike it and in the same way his sponsors are free to stop sponsoring him (provided there is no legal obligation). What makes it so self-evident that one should be able to joke about anything and everyone without there being any consequence whatsoever?
On October 16 2012 08:01 Killscreen wrote: Self validating external sense? What are you smoking? ( pm me )
What we are looking for is a logical reason for why Stefano was wrong. What was ethically wrong about what he did, and what would be the consequences if it went unpunished?
lol.
well, what I was arguing from there would be the meta-ethical view that there are no actual moral facts about the world. Ontological nihilism is the term used to describe such a view. Then we have various theories on semantics... The one I often favour is called emotivism and its basically the idea that valuestatements (such as in morality) do not express propositions but rather attitudes of the speaker, that is emotional attitudes. I do not think that this always is the case as I do believe we often speak and think about morality as if our moral judgements are actual facts about the world (which of course they are not, there are no moral facts just as there are no aesthetic objective facts), and this jumping back and forth between meaning different things yet using the same words certainly adds to the confusion.
Logical reason? Im not sure what you mean by logic here. What was ethically wrong? Well I suppose I could argue many things if I wanted to, but lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing. The consequences if it went unpunished? well thats pretty obvious isnt it? He would be none the wiser, and would probably rapejoke all his way to the bank ^^
Philosophical ethics discussions aside, lets remember that this is about what was said, not done, which makes it a lot simpler. For me to say it was wrong it would have had to caused a harm to other people, and he had to have known that when he said it. The guy who posted the mohammed video a month back was wrong for instance.
first you cant compare a comedian to stephano since there are two separate languagegames going on there. Second Ricky Gervais is not saying anything that is at all analogous to saying you (sexually) abused a 14-year old the other day (ha ha ha, end of joke), so that has no bearing here either way (though I assume you could perhaps find some comedian making personal rapejokes somewhere). Third Ricky Gervais is actually funny, I wonder if anyone in here whos over 20 actually thought stephano said something funny. The actual pics of bling with his reaction when he realized he was streaming is quite hilarious however.
What makes you so sure it didnt cause any harm? Im also not so sure that simply because something causes harm it is immoral either. Killing Hitler caused him a great deal of harm I suppose.
I agree, there is a huge difference between Ricky Gervais talking on stage in front of a private audience of people who are specifically there to watch him and Stephano saying something on battle.net on a stream in front of a private audience of people who have specifically elected to watch bling's stream.
Oh wait, Ricky Gervais is okay because you think he's "actually funny." So the main point to draw is the whole world should revolve around your specific tastes in culture, which we can then extrapolate to moral considerations.
yeah thats called attacking a strawman. please... surely you have more intellectual honesty than that. Ricky Gervais has simply nothing to do with Stephano because hes not making any joke that is analogous to what stephano said. Just because two things fall under the same category doesnt mean theyre analogous to one another. I can make jokes relating to the holocaust without joking about jews for example.
I dont know about you, but personally a joke being funny is a prerequisite for me liking it, otherwise there is no point now is there.
If I'm not being charitable to the points you're making it's probably because there are none. I don't care what jokes you like and what jokes you don't like. The fact that you don't find a joke funny isn't a justification for claiming the joke should never have been told, or that the person who told it should have his employers mass emailed by a group of people who didn't think the joke was funny and also fact barely understand what he does for a living.
You wrote: lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing.
Then: I can make jokes relating to the holocaust without joking about jews for example.
On October 16 2012 09:33 Snusmumriken wrote: Well if you wish to make a silly list based on what I said it would be the other way around wouldnt it. Rape jokes are not ok if: a,b,c,d...
On October 16 2012 08:01 Killscreen wrote: Self validating external sense? What are you smoking? ( pm me )
What we are looking for is a logical reason for why Stefano was wrong. What was ethically wrong about what he did, and what would be the consequences if it went unpunished?
lol.
well, what I was arguing from there would be the meta-ethical view that there are no actual moral facts about the world. Ontological nihilism is the term used to describe such a view. Then we have various theories on semantics... The one I often favour is called emotivism and its basically the idea that valuestatements (such as in morality) do not express propositions but rather attitudes of the speaker, that is emotional attitudes. I do not think that this always is the case as I do believe we often speak and think about morality as if our moral judgements are actual facts about the world (which of course they are not, there are no moral facts just as there are no aesthetic objective facts), and this jumping back and forth between meaning different things yet using the same words certainly adds to the confusion.
Logical reason? Im not sure what you mean by logic here. What was ethically wrong? Well I suppose I could argue many things if I wanted to, but lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing. The consequences if it went unpunished? well thats pretty obvious isnt it? He would be none the wiser, and would probably rapejoke all his way to the bank ^^
Philosophical ethics discussions aside, lets remember that this is about what was said, not done, which makes it a lot simpler. For me to say it was wrong it would have had to caused a harm to other people, and he had to have known that when he said it. The guy who posted the mohammed video a month back was wrong for instance.
first you cant compare a comedian to stephano since there are two separate languagegames going on there. Second Ricky Gervais is not saying anything that is at all analogous to saying you (sexually) abused a 14-year old the other day (ha ha ha, end of joke), so that has no bearing here either way (though I assume you could perhaps find some comedian making personal rapejokes somewhere). Third Ricky Gervais is actually funny, I wonder if anyone in here whos over 20 actually thought stephano said something funny. The actual pics of bling with his reaction when he realized he was streaming is quite hilarious however.
What makes you so sure it didnt cause any harm? Im also not so sure that simply because something causes harm it is immoral either. Killing Hitler caused him a great deal of harm I suppose.
I agree, there is a huge difference between Ricky Gervais talking on stage in front of a private audience of people who are specifically there to watch him and Stephano saying something on battle.net on a stream in front of a private audience of people who have specifically elected to watch bling's stream.
Oh wait, Ricky Gervais is okay because you think he's "actually funny." So the main point to draw is the whole world should revolve around your specific tastes in culture, which we can then extrapolate to moral considerations.
yeah thats called attacking a strawman. please... surely you have more intellectual honesty than that. Ricky Gervais has simply nothing to do with Stephano because hes not making any joke that is analogous to what stephano said. Just because two things fall under the same category doesnt mean theyre analogous to one another. I can make jokes relating to the holocaust without joking about jews for example.
I dont know about you, but personally a joke being funny is a prerequisite for me liking it, otherwise there is no point now is there.
Ok, so how about the Ricky Gervais joke referenced in this article:
And yet I'm going to say "that just wasn't funny". And I'm going to say it about the usually great Ricky Gervais. Take this joke from his stand-up show in Edinburgh this week.
"I nearly knocked this old woman over," he said, in a patter about drink-driving, "but I didn't. I raped her."
On October 16 2012 08:01 Killscreen wrote: Self validating external sense? What are you smoking? ( pm me )
What we are looking for is a logical reason for why Stefano was wrong. What was ethically wrong about what he did, and what would be the consequences if it went unpunished?
lol.
well, what I was arguing from there would be the meta-ethical view that there are no actual moral facts about the world. Ontological nihilism is the term used to describe such a view. Then we have various theories on semantics... The one I often favour is called emotivism and its basically the idea that valuestatements (such as in morality) do not express propositions but rather attitudes of the speaker, that is emotional attitudes. I do not think that this always is the case as I do believe we often speak and think about morality as if our moral judgements are actual facts about the world (which of course they are not, there are no moral facts just as there are no aesthetic objective facts), and this jumping back and forth between meaning different things yet using the same words certainly adds to the confusion.
Logical reason? Im not sure what you mean by logic here. What was ethically wrong? Well I suppose I could argue many things if I wanted to, but lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing. The consequences if it went unpunished? well thats pretty obvious isnt it? He would be none the wiser, and would probably rapejoke all his way to the bank ^^
Philosophical ethics discussions aside, lets remember that this is about what was said, not done, which makes it a lot simpler. For me to say it was wrong it would have had to caused a harm to other people, and he had to have known that when he said it. The guy who posted the mohammed video a month back was wrong for instance.
first you cant compare a comedian to stephano since there are two separate languagegames going on there. Second Ricky Gervais is not saying anything that is at all analogous to saying you (sexually) abused a 14-year old the other day (ha ha ha, end of joke), so that has no bearing here either way (though I assume you could perhaps find some comedian making personal rapejokes somewhere). Third Ricky Gervais is actually funny, I wonder if anyone in here whos over 20 actually thought stephano said something funny. The actual pics of bling with his reaction when he realized he was streaming is quite hilarious however.
What makes you so sure it didnt cause any harm? Im also not so sure that simply because something causes harm it is immoral either. Killing Hitler caused him a great deal of harm I suppose.
I agree, there is a huge difference between Ricky Gervais talking on stage in front of a private audience of people who are specifically there to watch him and Stephano saying something on battle.net on a stream in front of a private audience of people who have specifically elected to watch bling's stream.
Oh wait, Ricky Gervais is okay because you think he's "actually funny." So the main point to draw is the whole world should revolve around your specific tastes in culture, which we can then extrapolate to moral considerations.
yeah thats called attacking a strawman. please... surely you have more intellectual honesty than that. Ricky Gervais has simply nothing to do with Stephano because hes not making any joke that is analogous to what stephano said. Just because two things fall under the same category doesnt mean theyre analogous to one another. I can make jokes relating to the holocaust without joking about jews for example.
I dont know about you, but personally a joke being funny is a prerequisite for me liking it, otherwise there is no point now is there.
If I'm not being charitable to the points you're making it's probably because there are none. I don't care what jokes you like and what jokes you don't like. The fact that you don't find a joke funny isn't a justification for claiming the joke should never have been told, or that the person who told it should have his employers mass emailed by a group of people who didn't think the joke was funny and also fact barely understand what he does for a living.
On October 16 2012 09:33 Snusmumriken wrote: Well if you wish to make a silly list based on what I said it would be the other way around wouldnt it. Rape jokes are not ok if: a,b,c,d...
They're logically the same via De Morgan's laws.
Im sorry but im not interested in having some fight of wooden swords with you. Youre coming of as quite aggressive which there certainly is no need for.
I have never said the joke should never have ben told, so again stop putting words in my mouth. Im simply saying I dont endorse it, and apparently neither does EG. In part likely because its not even obvious it is a joke in the first place (though I assume it is since I dont want to think worse of people than necessary), again thats in part because its not even funny. If it was made by a comedian on stage however, and it actually was funny...
making an iff list of conjunctions and making an if list (not an iff list) Is not logically the same via De Morgans law's. But that wasnt actually serious on my part, so in case that wasnt clear I actually dont believe you can device some sort of idiots guide-list to morality. Especially since I already stated that im an emotivist.
This is the shit that's destroying starcraft. All these stupid incidents that get blown into massive public retard-fests. The drama was entertaining for a while, in an emotionally charged way. But after seeing so many e-battles between self-righteous white-knights, it grew stale and exhausting.
I stopped following starcraft news a few months back, due to a few issues. I arbitrarily decided to stop by r/starcraft today and saw a blog talking about the stephano issue. Then, after going through a few pages on this thread, I remembered how much I hated this drama shit. I miss the days of starcraft, where this publicity-sponsor-drama didn't exist. Where the scene was about the games and the players, and not about the sponsors.
The bigger starcraft gets, the harder it is going to be for it to maintain what made it so entertaining in the first place: the openness the players shared with their audience. The more money in the scene, the more sponsors involved, the more players will have to watch and monitor every little word they say.
This community is.. nearly unreasonably self righteous and overly sensitive to almost anything. It's almost sad.
He made a stupid, immature joke. Probably geared toward a running inside joke, or perhaps gauged on the sense of humor shared with Bling. It's how humor works - I have hilarious concepts and running jokes with a friend that out of context, will just be stupid random bull to anyone else who views it. Not that sexual harassment or rape of a minor should be condoned.. but the guy should have the fucking freedom to say whatever he feels like. The overly reactive sense of the community drives EG to be as strict as they are now, removing a good player from the scene for a month now. Over something stupid. Tasteless, perhaps, but the whole situation is still just stupid.
Seriously, where were they when IdrA was going through his "bad-boy" phase, bming left to right, breaking his headset at live LANs and flicking off other players? They didn't do shit besides a slap on the wrist because the community ate that shit up and loves him for it.
^ at the very least, the more prone to a drama fest it will get because there will be more people who will want to impose their beliefs (probably better word choice than that) on some shit that happens. since there are more eyes watching it, there are more people --> more opinions that have to be taken into consideration.
On October 16 2012 09:38 SecondSandwich wrote: Time to put this thread to rest, right? Is it not tiresome to reiterate pages 1-5 for another 130 pages?
Seriously. Talk about back and forth, useless conversations.
really stupid punishment and even dumbest when you see instead of getting tournaments he gets a paid trip to korea to train. Oh what a horrible punishment..
I like EG and I like Stephano, I dislike those that contacted sponsors because this entire issue is fucking stupid.
On October 16 2012 09:57 Snusmumriken wrote: making an iff list of conjunctions and making an if list (not an iff list) Is not logically the same via De Morgans law's. But that wasnt actually serious on my part, so in case that wasnt clear I actually dont believe you can device some sort of idiots guide-list to morality. Especially since I already stated that im an emotivist.
Forgive me if I didn't assume you were meticulous enough to distinguish between if and iff given the frequency of spelling errors in your posts.
On October 16 2012 09:22 Killscreen wrote: So rape jokes are ok if and only if 1. The victim is older than 18. 2. The joke is funny 3. The person telling the joke is not the rapist in the joke.
Here is the person who originally spoke using if and only if to describe a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. A conjunction's exhaustive nature justifies using iff.
On October 16 2012 09:33 Snusmumriken wrote: Well if you wish to make a silly list based on what I said it would be the other way around wouldnt it. Rape jokes are not ok if: a,b,c,d...
Here's you using material implication instead of a biconditional, but implying an exhaustive list by including 4+ conditions with an ellipsis when Killscreen only implied 3 conditions.
It doesn't matter if you don't use iff. His logic is of the form
If the joke is okay, then A and B and C...
If A and B and C..., then the joke is okay. (This is the "exhaustive" part of the biconditional which precludes there being any reason not in the list of necessary conditions which makes the joke okay. This part isn't necessary, as it were.)
Your logic is of the form
If not A or not B or not C..., then the joke isn't okay.
These are equivalent, almost by definition, work it out if you like.
On October 16 2012 09:33 Snusmumriken wrote: Well if you wish to make a silly list based on what I said it would be the other way around wouldnt it. Rape jokes are not ok if: a,b,c,d...
So here you were nitpicking nothing. It doesn't matter whether you use a disjunction of negatives or a conjunction of positives, the result is the same.
On October 16 2012 09:41 oBlade wrote: The fact that you don't find a joke funny isn't a justification for claiming the joke should never have been told, or that the person who told it should have his employers mass emailed by a group of people who didn't think the joke was funny and also fact barely understand what he does for a living.
On October 16 2012 09:57 Snusmumriken wrote: I dont endorse it, and apparently neither does EG. In part likely because its not even obvious it is a joke in the first place (though I assume it is since I dont want to think worse of people than necessary), again thats in part because its not even funny. If it was made by a comedian on stage however, and it actually was funny...
so again stop putting words in my mouth.
I feel like I'm being jerked around. Should I give you my pager number in case you ever claim something besides that you didn't think the joke was funny?
On October 16 2012 08:01 Killscreen wrote: Self validating external sense? What are you smoking? ( pm me )
What we are looking for is a logical reason for why Stefano was wrong. What was ethically wrong about what he did, and what would be the consequences if it went unpunished?
lol.
well, what I was arguing from there would be the meta-ethical view that there are no actual moral facts about the world. Ontological nihilism is the term used to describe such a view. Then we have various theories on semantics... The one I often favour is called emotivism and its basically the idea that valuestatements (such as in morality) do not express propositions but rather attitudes of the speaker, that is emotional attitudes. I do not think that this always is the case as I do believe we often speak and think about morality as if our moral judgements are actual facts about the world (which of course they are not, there are no moral facts just as there are no aesthetic objective facts), and this jumping back and forth between meaning different things yet using the same words certainly adds to the confusion.
Logical reason? Im not sure what you mean by logic here. What was ethically wrong? Well I suppose I could argue many things if I wanted to, but lets just settle with that by making such jokes youre trivializing a very serious issue, and that certainly is not a good thing. The consequences if it went unpunished? well thats pretty obvious isnt it? He would be none the wiser, and would probably rapejoke all his way to the bank ^^
Philosophical ethics discussions aside, lets remember that this is about what was said, not done, which makes it a lot simpler. For me to say it was wrong it would have had to caused a harm to other people, and he had to have known that when he said it. The guy who posted the mohammed video a month back was wrong for instance.
first you cant compare a comedian to stephano since there are two separate languagegames going on there. Second Ricky Gervais is not saying anything that is at all analogous to saying you (sexually) abused a 14-year old the other day (ha ha ha, end of joke), so that has no bearing here either way (though I assume you could perhaps find some comedian making personal rapejokes somewhere). Third Ricky Gervais is actually funny, I wonder if anyone in here whos over 20 actually thought stephano said something funny. The actual pics of bling with his reaction when he realized he was streaming is quite hilarious however.
What makes you so sure it didnt cause any harm? Im also not so sure that simply because something causes harm it is immoral either. Killing Hitler caused him a great deal of harm I suppose.
I agree, there is a huge difference between Ricky Gervais talking on stage in front of a private audience of people who are specifically there to watch him and Stephano saying something on battle.net on a stream in front of a private audience of people who have specifically elected to watch bling's stream.
Oh wait, Ricky Gervais is okay because you think he's "actually funny." So the main point to draw is the whole world should revolve around your specific tastes in culture, which we can then extrapolate to moral considerations.
yeah thats called attacking a strawman. please... surely you have more intellectual honesty than that. Ricky Gervais has simply nothing to do with Stephano because hes not making any joke that is analogous to what stephano said. Just because two things fall under the same category doesnt mean theyre analogous to one another. I can make jokes relating to the holocaust without joking about jews for example.
I dont know about you, but personally a joke being funny is a prerequisite for me liking it, otherwise there is no point now is there.
Ok, so how about the Ricky Gervais joke referenced in this article:
And yet I'm going to say "that just wasn't funny". And I'm going to say it about the usually great Ricky Gervais. Take this joke from his stand-up show in Edinburgh this week.
"I nearly knocked this old woman over," he said, in a patter about drink-driving, "but I didn't. I raped her."
Is that one analogous?
I wouldn't say it's analogous. Ricky Gervais is a known comedian and as one of the eminent people in the field tries to push the envelope on what jokes they can tell.
This issue with Stephano is not whether or not the joke is funny, but whether or not he even meant it as a joke in the first place. Admit to having done something bad, get caught, backtrack and claim it was a joke.
Possibility 1: Not a joke - He abused a 14-year-old (connotation is sexual since he mentions kids with milfs later on). Possibility 2: It was a joke - He has poor taste in jokes.
I'm not familiar with Stephano's character/personality, but typing "14 yo" and following it up with "14 yo..." looks awfully suspicious to me. For those who say "abuse" means something different in French or that it might not mean anything sexual, he mentions kids with milfs in the same sentence later on.
edit: Without additional information, we can't conclude anything more. The situation is highly suspicious, and I agree with EG's decision to suspend him for a month. If possibility 1, Stephano got off lightly. If possibility 2, he's learned to refine his sense of humour.
so who are we to judge how Stephano should live his life? What right is given to us to tell how he should live or not live? You guys need to chill out and just enjoy life...
On October 16 2012 11:14 rjustin wrote: so who are we to judge how Stephano should live his life? What right is given to us to tell how he should live or not live? You guys need to chill out and just enjoy life...
We have absolutely every right to judge absolutely anything and everything. Thats our right as humans with free will. I never understood where this "you don't have a right to judge" shit came from...
On October 16 2012 11:14 rjustin wrote: so who are we to judge how Stephano should live his life? What right is given to us to tell how he should live or not live? You guys need to chill out and just enjoy life...
Not our right. It is however EG's right, because they are paying him. How is it in any way our right to say EG is wrong. They are the ones paying, we are random people online with literally no relevance to the matter.
On October 16 2012 11:14 rjustin wrote: so who are we to judge how Stephano should live his life? What right is given to us to tell how he should live or not live? You guys need to chill out and just enjoy life...
Yeah you're right, I don't like to judge people who talk about possibly raping a 14yr old.
If we had access to the chat logs of every professional player I'm sure we'd have enough reasons to never pay players again. They're paid super nerds, not paragons of morality and justice.
Celebrity worship makes it's way to eSports. Next stop, SC2 TMZ.
EPT
)
