"Whether it should be removed is a tricky question. Probably not"
Okay. That's the first time you've said that (that I've seen, could be missing something)... up until now all that could be seen is an article about something being suppressed on account of being subjectively offensive to some and you explaining about what offence is and how insidious it is. If I came to an article about Creationism (for instance) and it's weight versus evolutionary theory and started talking about faith, how much it matter, etc... you'd be hard pressed to not think I was on the side of Creationism, no?
Of course you can disapprove of it. I disapprove of it, too... it's a lame joke and too easy... though I admit a few years ago I would have probably laughed (getting old).
I find it hard to believe that such videos were created with entirely causing offence in mind, but neither of us can know.
Feels somewhat silly arguing the toss over something when it appears now that we're essentially in agreement, but them's the breaks with online discussion.
@JoeBlogs I will grant that I can't know 100% (and never claimed to be able to do so).. I said (again!): "you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive"
It's not mind reading, it's (again, as said) perfectly logical inference based on your clearly worded comments.
As said: "your coming down on the side of the offended (and yes you did it enthusiastically) in a matter of basic censorship on the basis of taste makes it very difficult to not infer otherwise"
Not impossible to infer otherwise, but I would have to engage in some mental gymnastics to somehow cast you as playing a devils advocate position. If I were to come down on the side of Donald Trump (for instance) when discussing an action he took by saying things like "He's a great president!" would you honestly see me as not supporting his actions, given the original subject matter?
And so far as I can see when reading back, I insulted you a single time, when I called you a joke.... far from egregious, but I will certainly offer an apology for that, if that means anything to you.
@JoeBlogs
When your response to a video being taken down and suppressed due to offending some peoples subjective taste is to explain how nasty offence can be... it's very difficult to not infer that you are in support of said action.
"Why, therefore, do you want to deny my right to my own value system in which I think causing unnecessary offence for its own sake is unacceptable behaviour? You don't have to agree with that; I'm just putting forward a viewpoint."
Finally we agree. You're free to voice your opinion and I'm free to call it daft.
Imagine if someone were to tell you that you were not free to voice that opinion... would that wind you up?
"I have a right to that opinion and to voice it without it being interpreted as an attempt to set up a 'totalitarian' system in which I'm 'enthusiastically supporting' banning things I don't like"
1) You have NO right to not have you comments interpreted in ways you do not like. No one does.
2) What I said was:
'This is an argument of subjective taste and you advocating limiting access to things not of your taste... it's totalitarian in basic nature'
and
'Because you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive'
No one said you were setting anything up.
As said, your coming down on the side of the offended (and yes you did it enthusiastically) in a matter of basic censorship on the basis of taste makes it very difficult to not infer otherwise.
@JoeBlogs "However, some things can be highly offensive to people and cause them to be very upset. If your little brother died in Auschwitz then that Italian woman's 'Auschwitzland' T-shirt above could cause a lot of distress."
I would take issue with the word 'distress' and downgrade it to 'offence' but the key word there is **could**... we're back to talking about taste again. By your taste it is okay to risk causing me offence because the subjective rating (to you) is okay.
I've suffered actual trauma in my life (most people have, but by your comments about hearaing something mean causing suffering I am not certain if you have) and whilst I would find it offensive/uncomfortable to hear or see people make light of the subject I woudl never even dream of supporting the idea of their right to say/do such things being limited.
"I don't know why you think I'm trying to 'stifle' or 'limit access' to anything" Because you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive. If you support the idea of removing content on the basis of subjective taste, then you are a terrible person.
Wouldn't call them ad hominem attacks as there is no attempt to diver the discussion... they're petty insults and levelled purely to try to add some emotive context to how utterly moronic I find your arguments.
@JoeBlogs You're acting like people need to be protected from being "resentful, upset, or annoyed"
"here you have it: 'upset'." Yes.. toddlers get 'upset' when you don't give them chocolate. Whiny morons get 'upset' when you call them such.
Jesus... you're taking synonyms as an argument and then saying that they automatically match up. Okay, let's try that for something else:
ill /ɪl/Submit adjective 1. suffering from an illness or disease or feeling unwell. "he was taken ill with food poisoning" synonyms: unwell, sick, not (very) well, ailing, poorly, sickly, peaky, afflicted, indisposed, infirm, liverish; More
So... an ill person is now automatically infirm! Who knew??!
No, I can see that if you think of offence as 'suffering' then you've lived a very charmed and/or pampered existence.
"If you do that deliberately, and this is your only aim, then I repeat that that makes you a terrible person."
So a person who is also trying to be funny with something he/she finds amusing is okay, then?
And we're also back to you being psychic. wow... You know 100% the inner workings of someone's mind when they cause offence, you know exactly when a person is only trying to cause offence (this is extraordinarily rare). You're a joke, pal.
You have no idea if the posters of these videos just found the act funny, found the NPC annoying, etc... but you're quick to try and stifle because in your little word, seeing something which makes you "resentful, upset, or annoyed" is 'suffering'...
Don't ever watch a documentary about history, sweetheart, you might 'suffer'
"At least, please don't forget that most of the 20th century dictators were legitimately elected."
Of course they were... that's the risk you run when giving the people the choice but, as Churchill said (I believe), "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
"People should really learn something from history, but here we are, defending the rights of insulting dead people."
Of course you can insult dead people!! I will insult Jimmy Savile (for instance) until the day I die and if they dug up his body I would punch it and then probably urinate on it... I'm fairly sure you'd be okay with this...
What you're saying is to not be allowed to insult dead people that you admire of have no issue with.
You know what the motivation behind every act you don't like is?
Calling offence "mental anguish and suffering" is such nonsense. Offence is seeing or hearing something which you find very disagreeable for whatever reason.
Right now, I'm saying things which I think have a decent chance of offending someone. Should I be stopped from voicing my opinion if I think there is even a 1% chance of someone being offended?
Everything is offensive to someone. When you're talking being offensive for the sake of it (ever been to a stand up show?) making one a terrible person... I find that notion rather offensive I think you know that I would... so... does that make you offensive.
This is an argument of subjective taste and you advocating limiting access to things not of your taste... it's totalitarian in basic nature (I would be surprised if you see it as such) and antithetical to any society with anything approaching a decent level of freedom.
@JoeBlogs Of course it will be offensive.... but so what? Offence isn't a bad thing... you don't get offended and then suddenly wake up with leprosy.... why does offence have any influence on anything? I'm offended by dance music resamples of rock songs! Do I get to ban the practice?
@andreoni79
You're comparing someone publicly advocating genocide at a far right rally with people burning an effigy privately (which then got leaked)?
In all things, context is important.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that the more unpopular the speech, the more protection it needs and should get (barring specific and explicit calls to violence and/or criminality)... popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
@nessisonett Because so many people watch a video of a video game character being assaulted and think "Yeah!! F**K women!! Beat them all up!!"
Are you high?
"Just this week in the UK a group of men were arrested after burning an effigy of Grenfell Tower, a tower block involved in a large-scale fire where many people died."
Yes, and disgusting as that joke was, it was just a joke... if you advocate this kind of policing of humour, then I hope you're never in any position to influence policy.
@turntSNACO "Shooting tons of nameless baddies is normal in video games. Torturing and killing a woman explicitly for being a "feminist" is not. In a world where real-life women get real-life harassment from angry gamers (often on youtube!), there's no comparison."
So, you think people aren't getting shot every day?... they are, in droves, all over the world. The fact of the matter is that you can engage in horrific things in an open world game centered around violence and acquisition.. many of these things (shooting random shopkeepers in such a way that they fall in a comedic fashion, for instance) are all over Youtube and far worse than an annoying NPC (I think this NPC is made to be this way, her shouts actually interrupt conversations your character is having with others) getting punched.
Your assertion that things that happen in real life, however vaguely related, shouldn't be allowed in video games... this would leave a very small number of things you could code.
Studies have shown that people become less physically violent when playing violent video games, not more... your entire argument is nonsense and blatantly predicated around not wanting something you admire being satirized or attacked in a video game.
Comments 11
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
"Whether it should be removed is a tricky question. Probably not"
Okay. That's the first time you've said that (that I've seen, could be missing something)... up until now all that could be seen is an article about something being suppressed on account of being subjectively offensive to some and you explaining about what offence is and how insidious it is.
If I came to an article about Creationism (for instance) and it's weight versus evolutionary theory and started talking about faith, how much it matter, etc... you'd be hard pressed to not think I was on the side of Creationism, no?
Of course you can disapprove of it. I disapprove of it, too... it's a lame joke and too easy... though I admit a few years ago I would have probably laughed (getting old).
I find it hard to believe that such videos were created with entirely causing offence in mind, but neither of us can know.
Feels somewhat silly arguing the toss over something when it appears now that we're essentially in agreement, but them's the breaks with online discussion.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
I will grant that I can't know 100% (and never claimed to be able to do so).. I said (again!):
"you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive"
It's not mind reading, it's (again, as said) perfectly logical inference based on your clearly worded comments.
As said:
"your coming down on the side of the offended (and yes you did it enthusiastically) in a matter of basic censorship on the basis of taste makes it very difficult to not infer otherwise"
Not impossible to infer otherwise, but I would have to engage in some mental gymnastics to somehow cast you as playing a devils advocate position.
If I were to come down on the side of Donald Trump (for instance) when discussing an action he took by saying things like "He's a great president!" would you honestly see me as not supporting his actions, given the original subject matter?
And so far as I can see when reading back, I insulted you a single time, when I called you a joke.... far from egregious, but I will certainly offer an apology for that, if that means anything to you.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
When your response to a video being taken down and suppressed due to offending some peoples subjective taste is to explain how nasty offence can be... it's very difficult to not infer that you are in support of said action.
"Why, therefore, do you want to deny my right to my own value system in which I think causing unnecessary offence for its own sake is unacceptable behaviour? You don't have to agree with that; I'm just putting forward a viewpoint."
Finally we agree. You're free to voice your opinion and I'm free to call it daft.
Imagine if someone were to tell you that you were not free to voice that opinion... would that wind you up?
"I have a right to that opinion and to voice it without it being interpreted as an attempt to set up a 'totalitarian' system in which I'm 'enthusiastically supporting' banning things I don't like"
1) You have NO right to not have you comments interpreted in ways you do not like. No one does.
2) What I said was:
'This is an argument of subjective taste and you advocating limiting access to things not of your taste... it's totalitarian in basic nature'
and
'Because you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive'
No one said you were setting anything up.
As said, your coming down on the side of the offended (and yes you did it enthusiastically) in a matter of basic censorship on the basis of taste makes it very difficult to not infer otherwise.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
"However, some things can be highly offensive to people and cause them to be very upset. If your little brother died in Auschwitz then that Italian woman's 'Auschwitzland' T-shirt above could cause a lot of distress."
I would take issue with the word 'distress' and downgrade it to 'offence' but the key word there is **could**... we're back to talking about taste again.
By your taste it is okay to risk causing me offence because the subjective rating (to you) is okay.
I've suffered actual trauma in my life (most people have, but by your comments about hearaing something mean causing suffering I am not certain if you have) and whilst I would find it offensive/uncomfortable to hear or see people make light of the subject I woudl never even dream of supporting the idea of their right to say/do such things being limited.
"I don't know why you think I'm trying to 'stifle' or 'limit access' to anything"
Because you're enthusiastically supporting the idea of removing content that people deem offensive.
If you support the idea of removing content on the basis of subjective taste, then you are a terrible person.
Wouldn't call them ad hominem attacks as there is no attempt to diver the discussion... they're petty insults and levelled purely to try to add some emotive context to how utterly moronic I find your arguments.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
You're acting like people need to be protected from being "resentful, upset, or annoyed"
"here you have it: 'upset'."
Yes.. toddlers get 'upset' when you don't give them chocolate.
Whiny morons get 'upset' when you call them such.
Jesus... you're taking synonyms as an argument and then saying that they automatically match up.
Okay, let's try that for something else:
ill
/ɪl/Submit
adjective
1.
suffering from an illness or disease or feeling unwell.
"he was taken ill with food poisoning"
synonyms: unwell, sick, not (very) well, ailing, poorly, sickly, peaky, afflicted, indisposed, infirm, liverish; More
So... an ill person is now automatically infirm! Who knew??!
No, I can see that if you think of offence as 'suffering' then you've lived a very charmed and/or pampered existence.
"If you do that deliberately, and this is your only aim, then I repeat that that makes you a terrible person."
So a person who is also trying to be funny with something he/she finds amusing is okay, then?
And we're also back to you being psychic. wow...
You know 100% the inner workings of someone's mind when they cause offence, you know exactly when a person is only trying to cause offence (this is extraordinarily rare).
You're a joke, pal.
You have no idea if the posters of these videos just found the act funny, found the NPC annoying, etc... but you're quick to try and stifle because in your little word, seeing something which makes you "resentful, upset, or annoyed" is 'suffering'...
Don't ever watch a documentary about history, sweetheart, you might 'suffer'
Jesus wept...
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@andreoni79
"At least, please don't forget that most of the 20th century dictators were legitimately elected."
Of course they were... that's the risk you run when giving the people the choice but, as Churchill said (I believe), "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
"People should really learn something from history, but here we are, defending the rights of insulting dead people."
Of course you can insult dead people!! I will insult Jimmy Savile (for instance) until the day I die and if they dug up his body I would punch it and then probably urinate on it... I'm fairly sure you'd be okay with this...
What you're saying is to not be allowed to insult dead people that you admire of have no issue with.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
Oh... so you're psychic as well?
You know what the motivation behind every act you don't like is?
Calling offence "mental anguish and suffering" is such nonsense. Offence is seeing or hearing something which you find very disagreeable for whatever reason.
Right now, I'm saying things which I think have a decent chance of offending someone. Should I be stopped from voicing my opinion if I think there is even a 1% chance of someone being offended?
Everything is offensive to someone. When you're talking being offensive for the sake of it (ever been to a stand up show?) making one a terrible person... I find that notion rather offensive I think you know that I would... so... does that make you offensive.
This is an argument of subjective taste and you advocating limiting access to things not of your taste... it's totalitarian in basic nature (I would be surprised if you see it as such) and antithetical to any society with anything approaching a decent level of freedom.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@JoeBlogs
Of course it will be offensive.... but so what?
Offence isn't a bad thing... you don't get offended and then suddenly wake up with leprosy.... why does offence have any influence on anything?
I'm offended by dance music resamples of rock songs! Do I get to ban the practice?
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@andreoni79
You're comparing someone publicly advocating genocide at a far right rally with people burning an effigy privately (which then got leaked)?
In all things, context is important.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that the more unpopular the speech, the more protection it needs and should get (barring specific and explicit calls to violence and/or criminality)... popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@nessisonett
Because so many people watch a video of a video game character being assaulted and think "Yeah!! F**K women!! Beat them all up!!"
Are you high?
"Just this week in the UK a group of men were arrested after burning an effigy of Grenfell Tower, a tower block involved in a large-scale fire where many people died."
Yes, and disgusting as that joke was, it was just a joke... if you advocate this kind of policing of humour, then I hope you're never in any position to influence policy.
Re: Red Dead Redemption 2 Clips Featuring Assaulted Suffragette Prompt YouTube Controversy
@turntSNACO
"Shooting tons of nameless baddies is normal in video games. Torturing and killing a woman explicitly for being a "feminist" is not. In a world where real-life women get real-life harassment from angry gamers (often on youtube!), there's no comparison."
So, you think people aren't getting shot every day?... they are, in droves, all over the world.
The fact of the matter is that you can engage in horrific things in an open world game centered around violence and acquisition.. many of these things (shooting random shopkeepers in such a way that they fall in a comedic fashion, for instance) are all over Youtube and far worse than an annoying NPC (I think this NPC is made to be this way, her shouts actually interrupt conversations your character is having with others) getting punched.
Your assertion that things that happen in real life, however vaguely related, shouldn't be allowed in video games... this would leave a very small number of things you could code.
Studies have shown that people become less physically violent when playing violent video games, not more... your entire argument is nonsense and blatantly predicated around not wanting something you admire being satirized or attacked in a video game.