I think it's ironic how people defend hate speech spitting "safe space" as an offense when they are the ones that need this online safe space to practice their hate speech to begin with, because they wouldn't be able to act the same in real life.
Except, Charlottesville, Virginia last August 2017. "Hate speech" isn't limited to the internet by any means, nor does it need the internet.
I think it's ironic that people use invalid points to defend their vacuous position.
So why is it on the internet? If it doesn't need it? I mean I guess they could snail mail their hateful comments to youtube HQ I guess? It's not like the internet isn't an instant communication tool. Wow, I didn't know you were this ignorant.
Those idiots in Virginia are the same type of people hiding online.. or do you not get this?
What do you think... its different for them because they marched somewhere? lol, Jesus...
SMH.
Death penalty for Mark Meechan for telling a joke then? What do you think is appropriate?
See, you're eventually going to realize just how ridiculous you truly are, but don't feel the need to admit it to me. I don't need your admission. I just hope you realize it eventually.
Again.. his words had consequences. He told the wrong joke to the wrong people I guess. Another example of what I'm saying about WORDS having power. They are not to be taken lightly. Words can be used as weapons and people should be responsible for the things they say.
How can you be responsible for your actions but not your words? It makes no sense.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
I think it's ironic how people defend hate speech spitting "safe space" as an offense when they are the ones that need this online safe space to practice their hate speech to begin with, because they wouldn't be able to act the same in real life.
Except, Charlottesville, Virginia last August 2017. "Hate speech" isn't limited to the internet by any means, nor does it need the internet.
I think it's ironic that people use invalid points to defend their vacuous position.
So why is it on the internet? If it doesn't need it? I mean I guess they could snail mail their hateful comments to youtube HQ I guess? It's not like the internet isn't an instant communication tool. Wow, I didn't know you were this ignorant.
Those idiots in Virginia are the same type of people hiding online.. or do you not get this?
What do you think... its different for them because they marched somewhere? lol, Jesus...
SMH.
Death penalty for Mark Meechan for telling a joke then? What do you think is appropriate?
See, you're eventually going to realize just how ridiculous you truly are, but don't feel the need to admit it to me. I don't need your admission. I just hope you realize it eventually.
Also your guy according to the article knew exactly what he was doing because he tried to say it was "leaked" that by itself is enough for me to know that he knew he was wrong. He also broke the law according to the UK's communications act. Great quotes for you from the article that you really need to pay attention to below.
"The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive."
"In my view it is a reasonable conclusion that the video is grossly offensive"
"The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand."
"This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration, But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility."
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
I think it's ironic how people defend hate speech spitting "safe space" as an offense when they are the ones that need this online safe space to practice their hate speech to begin with, because they wouldn't be able to act the same in real life.
Except, Charlottesville, Virginia last August 2017. "Hate speech" isn't limited to the internet by any means, nor does it need the internet.
I think it's ironic that people use invalid points to defend their vacuous position.
So why is it on the internet? If it doesn't need it? I mean I guess they could snail mail their hateful comments to youtube HQ I guess? It's not like the internet isn't an instant communication tool. Wow, I didn't know you were this ignorant.
Those idiots in Virginia are the same type of people hiding online.. or do you not get this?
What do you think... its different for them because they marched somewhere? lol, Jesus...
SMH.
Death penalty for Mark Meechan for telling a joke then? What do you think is appropriate?
See, you're eventually going to realize just how ridiculous you truly are, but don't feel the need to admit it to me. I don't need your admission. I just hope you realize it eventually.
Also your guy according to the article knew exactly what he was doing because he tried to say it was "leaked" that by itself is enough for me to know that he knew he was wrong. He also broke the law according to the UK's communications act. Great quotes for you from the article that you really need to pay attention to below.
"The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive."
"In my view it is a reasonable conclusion that the video is grossly offensive"
"The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand."
"This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration, But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility."
Keep going. You make my point better than I ever could.
"Keep going. You make my point better than I ever could" omg hahahaLMAOOOOOOOO okay, buddy..
tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.
Edit: "Keep going. You make my point better than I ever could" - That's what you wrote not me. You added a line to my post. Please don't try to add lines to my post. it's a high-level post, you need the right gear. please /sit
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Interesting thread. But since when have we decided that the internet is a special place detached from reality where we can display socially unacceptable behaviour without consequence? I mean, a lot of people behave like that but is this normal and should we accept it?
Of course we shouldn't self censor to satisfy the most easily offended in the room, in a healthy real life situation we wouldn't do that either. But there is a difference between socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behaviour, be it words or not. And in the case of the latter there are consequences, even with words. You can go to jail, get beaten up, lose friends or loved ones, and yes, even get murdered. All because of words.
So yes, lots of times people do need to toughen up, disagreeing is perfectly normal for instance but online it can easily be called trolling or griefing. But when these online personas display socially unacceptable behaviour the other people don't need to toughen up, the first group needs to tone it down. The Black Panther comment illustrates that perfectly, unacceptable on any level and it has got nothing to do with the internet not being a safe space. Because it is to those spreading rascism, hate and other crap without having to face the real life consequences.
Some people still think the internet is some sort of Wild West where anything goes, they are wrong. Just like the people that think internet is the place where they should be the only one taken into account when it comes to feelings and comments. Geez, its almost like real life with real people in it now isn't it?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
We have an issue with this in gaming, but it is way, way worse in social media and so it is worth noting this is nothing to do with gamers or the adversarial position games put them in.
Now that you have written the rule book, test it out on an article discussing a very heated topic and see how the rules hold up. Anyone can write an article that says puppies are cute and kittens are kuddly amongst an audience of the ASPCA. No arguments will abound so rules stand up and everyone is happy.
Now, step into the mire and tackle a topic that you know is like suggesting Jesus doesn't exist to the devout. That's the ONLY place where such rules can truly be tested. On this forum merely suggesting a definition of the term MMORPG will result in a brawl fight. A simple term that has a thousand meanings and the only meaning that ever seems to matter is your own.
There is a reason why some topics are taboo... because no matter how well it is written or said, the end result is always the same. Some things cannot be discussed in a civilized manner unless it is to a captive audience. But true debate can never occur within a captive audience, thus the term, preaching to the choir.
It's been like this since the beginning of time. The internet didn't breed bad behavior, it merely highlights it. People have been arguing with each other in academia, church, playgrounds, court, congress, et al... all places with rules... because calm discourse has never resulted in any lasting outcome.
A safe article proves nothing. Test your theory in the real mire of public debate. That is the only true arena. Then come up with some rules that they will all abide by. That may take a lifetime.
People claim they support freedom of speech, and say they tolerate different opinions, then act shocked when they find out others have different opinions.
Insofar as why certain individuals can't handle "words" on the internet?
[b]My huge generalities touch on their over-sensitivity, their insistence that they are right despite the overwhelming proof that suggests they are not, their lack of placing things within context, the overreacting, the passive-aggressive positivity, and, of course, all of this exacerbated by the meds they’ve been fed since childhood by over-protective “helicopter” parents mapping their every move. These are late-end Baby Boomers and Generation X parents who were now rebelling against their own rebelliousness because of the love they felt that they never got from their selfish narcissistic Boomer parents and who end up smothering their kids, inducing a kind of inadequate preparation in how to deal with the hardships of life and the real way the world works: people won’t like you, that person may not love you back, kids are really cruel, work sucks, it’s hard to be good at something, life is made up of failure and disappointment, you’re not talented, people suffer, people grow old, people die. And Generation Wuss responds by collapsing into sentimentality and creating victim narratives rather than acknowledging the realities of the world and grappling with them and processing them and then moving on, better prepared to navigate an often hostile or indifferent world that doesn’t care if you exist. [/b]
The anonymity of the internet is the dual-edged sword as was noted. Unfortunately that won't change anytime soon and thus without consequence people will act accordingly. Likewise it has become human nature to take to the internet to complain more than to praise.
Interesting debate over Freedom of Speech in this thread.
Looking at how yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. It leaves me with the sad realization that Freedom of Speech (in my life time) is just a pipe dream.
No matter what the laws or the constitution says... People good and bad, pay for it with their lives.
Interesting debate over Freedom of Speech in this thread.
Looking at how yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. It leaves me with the sad realization that Freedom of Speech (in my life time) is just a pipe dream.
No matter what the laws or the constitution says... People good and bad, pay for it with their lives.
I think it's ironic how people defend hate speech spitting "safe space" as an offense when they are the ones that need this online safe space to practice their hate speech to begin with, because they wouldn't be able to act the same in real life.
Except, Charlottesville, Virginia last August 2017. "Hate speech" isn't limited to the internet by any means, nor does it need the internet.
I think it's ironic that people use invalid points to defend their vacuous position.
I definitely see some irony, likely not in the same sense you do.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Interesting debate over Freedom of Speech in this thread.
Looking at how yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. It leaves me with the sad realization that Freedom of Speech (in my life time) is just a pipe dream.
No matter what the laws or the constitution says... People good and bad, pay for it with their lives.
The country behind the Iron Curtain that my late father escaped from. If you publicly criticized the government there were all kinds of government inflicted repercussions, including jail time or worse.
I understand perfectly what Freedom of Speech in the constitution is meant to protect you from.
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
I disagree, and want to point out he didn't get convicted for making a "joke" about nazis, people have been doing that since the WW2 ended.
He did however make a fun of the wholesale slaughter of Jews along with disparaging them as a group.
Not sure I'd agree with jailing him, but forcing him to take it down, heavy fines and forced community service, sure.
There are topics which at the very least its very bad form (see what I did there? ) to make light of, especially with regards to human suffering.
In case some here (not necessarily you Phry) don't understand what I am saying, so to help out these should be totally avoided in crafting "humor"; human slavery, trafficking, oppression or genocide.
Normally same for those suffering from serious or fatal maladies such cancer, mental disabilities, physical deformities and the like though sometimes light hearted jokes are accepted such as those about wheelchair riders, but only if the humorist is sitting in one themselves.
It's true, in some scenarios it can be acceptable for a member of the "victim" class to make light of their current or past heritage and events, but even then its a very thin line to walk.
As a white male there are very few situations where I can make any sort of humorous reference to most of the above, which I have no issue with as I understand the reasoning.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I disagree with punishing comedians for bad jokes. The context is important; you go to those shows expecting humor, and popular comedians all have a well established brand of humor.
Anthony Jeselnik, for example, has deeply blue humor. He's made jokes about anman who died in a shark attack, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. The difference is this: nobody is going into a comedy show to seek a persuasive argument in support of certain action. It's all jokes, and that's the point.
If the joke is terrible, castrate the reputation of the comedian. That's warranted. But punishing them through legal means is too much. The audience is clearly informed that the comedian has one goal: to create funny. The speech is geared towards that, so it should be approached accordingly.
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
There's nothing to think about. There is nothing PC about this. The guy made an offensive youtube video and left it up. Millions of views.. he could've pulled it down if he really didn't want to offend people... At that moment he made a choice to accept the consequences that came with that. Knowingly or not.
He broke the law according to the U.K. and should have to face the consequences of breaking the law. Period. Again, this is an example of having to own up to what you say online. Let this be a precautionary tale. Freedom of speech does not mean you can weaponize words without consequences. You are -FREE- to say what you want yes, but again.. prepare to face consequences. Being online does not make your bigotry suddenly okay. In this guys case, no I don't think he deserves prison or death but he for sure should have to face some type of consequence.
This type of behavior is not okay and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
I disagree with punishing comedians for bad jokes. The context is important; you go to those shows expecting humor, and popular comedians all have a well established brand of humor.
Anthony Jeselnik, for example, has deeply blue humor. He's made jokes about anman who died in a shark attack, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. The difference is this: nobody is going into a comedy show to seek a persuasive argument in support of certain action. It's all jokes, and that's the point.
If the joke is terrible, castrate the reputation of the comedian. That's warranted. But punishing them through legal means is too much. The audience is clearly informed that the comedian has one goal: to create funny. The speech is geared towards that, so it should be approached accordingly.
The dude isn't a comedian. This wasn't a comedy show. He was a normal dude who tried to be funny by making a super offensive video.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
I disagree, and want to point out he didn't get convicted for making a "joke" about nazis, people have been doing that since the WW2 ended.
He did however make a fun of the wholesale slaughter of Jews along with disparaging them as a group.
Not sure I'd agree with jailing him, but forcing him to take it down, heavy fines and forced community service, sure.
There are topics which at the very least its very bad form (see what I did there? ) to make light of, especially with regards to human suffering.
In case some here (not necessarily you Phry) don't understand what I am saying, so to help out these should be totally avoided in crafting "humor"; human slavery, trafficking, oppression or genocide.
Normally same for those suffering from serious or fatal maladies such cancer, mental disabilities, physical deformities and the like though sometimes light hearted jokes are accepted such as those about wheelchair riders, but only if the humorist is sitting in one themselves.
It's true, in some scenarios it can be acceptable for a member of the "victim" class to make light of their current or past heritage and events, but even then its a very thin line to walk.
As a white male there are very few situations where I can make any sort of humorous reference to most of the above, which I have no issue with as I understand the reasoning.
It sounds like you've read about it from a biased source tbh, at no point did he make fun of the wholesale slaughter of jews etc. This is what happens when people decide for themselves the context in which something is said or done without any regard to how it is presented.
I disagree with punishing comedians for bad jokes. The context is important; you go to those shows expecting humor, and popular comedians all have a well established brand of humor.
Anthony Jeselnik, for example, has deeply blue humor. He's made jokes about anman who died in a shark attack, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. The difference is this: nobody is going into a comedy show to seek a persuasive argument in support of certain action. It's all jokes, and that's the point.
If the joke is terrible, castrate the reputation of the comedian. That's warranted. But punishing them through legal means is too much. The audience is clearly informed that the comedian has one goal: to create funny. The speech is geared towards that, so it should be approached accordingly.
I agree, context is important.
The sad thing is that the lack-of-context is going to hurt more that just comedians. if you say you "killed two birds with one stone" a criminal court in the UK would now have to accept it as a confession to animal cruelty because they're set legal precedent that "context does not matter".
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
I disagree, and want to point out he didn't get convicted for making a "joke" about nazis, people have been doing that since the WW2 ended.
He did however make a fun of the wholesale slaughter of Jews along with disparaging them as a group.
Not sure I'd agree with jailing him, but forcing him to take it down, heavy fines and forced community service, sure.
There are topics which at the very least its very bad form (see what I did there? ) to make light of, especially with regards to human suffering.
In case some here (not necessarily you Phry) don't understand what I am saying, so to help out these should be totally avoided in crafting "humor"; human slavery, trafficking, oppression or genocide.
Normally same for those suffering from serious or fatal maladies such cancer, mental disabilities, physical deformities and the like though sometimes light hearted jokes are accepted such as those about wheelchair riders, but only if the humorist is sitting in one themselves.
It's true, in some scenarios it can be acceptable for a member of the "victim" class to make light of their current or past heritage and events, but even then its a very thin line to walk.
As a white male there are very few situations where I can make any sort of humorous reference to most of the above, which I have no issue with as I understand the reasoning.
It sounds like you've read about it from a biased source tbh, at no point did he make fun of the wholesale slaughter of jews etc. This is what happens when people decide for themselves the context in which something is said or done without any regard to how it is presented.
Definitely an interesting case.
I'm not very knowledgeable about the legal system in the UK but I'd wager that the case is going to be appealed.
Death penalty for that guy is a little stiff for my taste but the fact remains he should face consequences. He went on a public stage with hate speech even if he thought it was funny, he could've taken the video down.. he didn't, he got millions of views on it.. so yea the world needs an example of what happens when the wrong person finds it not funny. Words hold weight.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
Its a controversial case in that in the opinion of many it should never have gone to court in the first place, its a very clear example of political correctness on steroids, the court actually stated that they have the right to decide the context of someone elses opinions, think about that for a moment.
I disagree, and want to point out he didn't get convicted for making a "joke" about nazis, people have been doing that since the WW2 ended.
He did however make a fun of the wholesale slaughter of Jews along with disparaging them as a group.
Not sure I'd agree with jailing him, but forcing him to take it down, heavy fines and forced community service, sure.
There are topics which at the very least its very bad form (see what I did there? ) to make light of, especially with regards to human suffering.
In case some here (not necessarily you Phry) don't understand what I am saying, so to help out these should be totally avoided in crafting "humor"; human slavery, trafficking, oppression or genocide.
Normally same for those suffering from serious or fatal maladies such cancer, mental disabilities, physical deformities and the like though sometimes light hearted jokes are accepted such as those about wheelchair riders, but only if the humorist is sitting in one themselves.
It's true, in some scenarios it can be acceptable for a member of the "victim" class to make light of their current or past heritage and events, but even then its a very thin line to walk.
As a white male there are very few situations where I can make any sort of humorous reference to most of the above, which I have no issue with as I understand the reasoning.
It sounds like you've read about it from a biased source tbh, at no point did he make fun of the wholesale slaughter of jews etc. This is what happens when people decide for themselves the context in which something is said or done without any regard to how it is presented.
Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.
I'm confused on what you don't understand about that line. Are you really saying you think the context supports him not being a bigot? Wait... you really think because he was getting his dog to respond to those commands that suddenly its okay because its a cute dog on youtube?
I'm African American. If I saw the same dude teaching his dog to react to a word like N*GG*R, I and millions of others would be offended. The same as a Jew who saw this video. It's bigotry. Nobody cares that it was a dog in the video. It evokes the same feeling. Genocide isn't funny. Whats insane is this guy is the anomaly. There are literally thousands of bigotry/hate-filled videos on youtube and those people go unchecked 9/10. It not easy for platforms to catch all of them unless they get massive views like this guy did. YT does not support hate filled anything on their platform, read their Terms and Conditions. It's not censorship, its their right as a company to monitor and set boundaries for what they want to spread. Hate speech needs a vehicle to spread and the internet has become that vehicle for this generation's bigots.
Again maybe jail time is stiff but if he broke a law in the UK that requires jail time, then those are the consequences he must face. It's amazing how the people defending him are more upset with his sentence that at what he did.
Again, Freedom to speak, Freedom of Speech none of that is a pass to say what you want without consequence. Yes, you have the right to your opinion, but also, understand Saying your opinion publicly can get you into some unwanted consequences depending on what it is and who's listening. There are going to be very few spaces in the world at large where you can spew bigotry and go unchecked. The internet is sadly one of those places.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Comments
How can you be responsible for your actions but not your words? It makes no sense.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
"The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive."
"In my view it is a reasonable conclusion that the video is grossly offensive"
"The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand."
"This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration, But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
People like yourself love to pretend they don't. Just ignore it and hope it goes away culture is strong with you my child. still.. smh.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
omg hahahaLMAOOOOOOOO okay, buddy..
tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.
Edit: "Keep going. You make my point better than I ever could"
- That's what you wrote not me. You added a line to my post. Please don't try to add lines to my post. it's a high-level post, you need the right gear. please /sit
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Of course we shouldn't self censor to satisfy the most easily offended in the room, in a healthy real life situation we wouldn't do that either. But there is a difference between socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behaviour, be it words or not. And in the case of the latter there are consequences, even with words. You can go to jail, get beaten up, lose friends or loved ones, and yes, even get murdered. All because of words.
So yes, lots of times people do need to toughen up, disagreeing is perfectly normal for instance but online it can easily be called trolling or griefing. But when these online personas display socially unacceptable behaviour the other people don't need to toughen up, the first group needs to tone it down. The Black Panther comment illustrates that perfectly, unacceptable on any level and it has got nothing to do with the internet not being a safe space. Because it is to those spreading rascism, hate and other crap without having to face the real life consequences.
Some people still think the internet is some sort of Wild West where anything goes, they are wrong. Just like the people that think internet is the place where they should be the only one taken into account when it comes to feelings and comments. Geez, its almost like real life with real people in it now isn't it?
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Now, step into the mire and tackle a topic that you know is like suggesting Jesus doesn't exist to the devout. That's the ONLY place where such rules can truly be tested. On this forum merely suggesting a definition of the term MMORPG will result in a brawl fight. A simple term that has a thousand meanings and the only meaning that ever seems to matter is your own.
There is a reason why some topics are taboo... because no matter how well it is written or said, the end result is always the same. Some things cannot be discussed in a civilized manner unless it is to a captive audience. But true debate can never occur within a captive audience, thus the term, preaching to the choir.
It's been like this since the beginning of time. The internet didn't breed bad behavior, it merely highlights it. People have been arguing with each other in academia, church, playgrounds, court, congress, et al... all places with rules... because calm discourse has never resulted in any lasting outcome.
A safe article proves nothing. Test your theory in the real mire of public debate. That is the only true arena. Then come up with some rules that they will all abide by. That may take a lifetime.
Insofar as why certain individuals can't handle "words" on the internet?
[b]My huge generalities touch on their over-sensitivity, their insistence that they are right despite the overwhelming proof that suggests they are not, their lack of placing things within context, the overreacting, the passive-aggressive positivity, and, of course, all of this exacerbated by the meds they’ve been fed since childhood by over-protective “helicopter” parents mapping their every move. These are late-end Baby Boomers and Generation X parents who were now rebelling against their own rebelliousness because of the love they felt that they never got from their selfish narcissistic Boomer parents and who end up smothering their kids, inducing a kind of inadequate preparation in how to deal with the hardships of life and the real way the world works: people won’t like you, that person may not love you back, kids are really cruel, work sucks, it’s hard to be good at something, life is made up of failure and disappointment, you’re not talented, people suffer, people grow old, people die. And Generation Wuss responds by collapsing into sentimentality and creating victim narratives rather than acknowledging the realities of the world and grappling with them and processing them and then moving on, better prepared to navigate an often hostile or indifferent world that doesn’t care if you exist. [/b]
https://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/voir-lire/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837
We're still monkeys. Our technology does not seem to change that fact.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The anonymity of the internet is the dual-edged sword as was noted. Unfortunately that won't change anytime soon and thus without consequence people will act accordingly. Likewise it has become human nature to take to the internet to complain more than to praise.
Looking at how yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. It leaves me with the sad realization that Freedom of Speech (in my life time) is just a pipe dream.
No matter what the laws or the constitution says... People good and bad, pay for it with their lives.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I understand perfectly what Freedom of Speech in the constitution is meant to protect you from.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
He did however make a fun of the wholesale slaughter of Jews along with disparaging them as a group.
Not sure I'd agree with jailing him, but forcing him to take it down, heavy fines and forced community service, sure.
There are topics which at the very least its very bad form (see what I did there?
In case some here (not necessarily you Phry) don't understand what I am saying, so to help out these should be totally avoided in crafting "humor"; human slavery, trafficking, oppression or genocide.
Normally same for those suffering from serious or fatal maladies such cancer, mental disabilities, physical deformities and the like though sometimes light hearted jokes are accepted such as those about wheelchair riders, but only if the humorist is sitting in one themselves.
It's true, in some scenarios it can be acceptable for a member of the "victim" class to make light of their current or past heritage and events, but even then its a very thin line to walk.
As a white male there are very few situations where I can make any sort of humorous reference to most of the above, which I have no issue with as I understand the reasoning.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Anthony Jeselnik, for example, has deeply blue humor. He's made jokes about anman who died in a shark attack, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. The difference is this: nobody is going into a comedy show to seek a persuasive argument in support of certain action. It's all jokes, and that's the point.
If the joke is terrible, castrate the reputation of the comedian. That's warranted. But punishing them through legal means is too much. The audience is clearly informed that the comedian has one goal: to create funny. The speech is geared towards that, so it should be approached accordingly.
He broke the law according to the U.K. and should have to face the consequences of breaking the law. Period. Again, this is an example of having to own up to what you say online. Let this be a precautionary tale. Freedom of speech does not mean you can weaponize words without consequences. You are -FREE- to say what you want yes, but again.. prepare to face consequences. Being online does not make your bigotry suddenly okay. In this guys case, no I don't think he deserves prison or death but he for sure should have to face some type of consequence.
This type of behavior is not okay and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
This is what happens when people decide for themselves the context in which something is said or done without any regard to how it is presented.
The sad thing is that the lack-of-context is going to hurt more that just comedians. if you say you "killed two birds with one stone" a criminal court in the UK would now have to accept it as a confession to animal cruelty because they're set legal precedent that "context does not matter".
I'm not very knowledgeable about the legal system in the UK but I'd wager that the case is going to be appealed.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I'm confused on what you don't understand about that line. Are you really saying you think the context supports him not being a bigot? Wait... you really think because he was getting his dog to respond to those commands that suddenly its okay because its a cute dog on youtube?
I'm African American. If I saw the same dude teaching his dog to react to a word like N*GG*R, I and millions of others would be offended. The same as a Jew who saw this video. It's bigotry. Nobody cares that it was a dog in the video. It evokes the same feeling. Genocide isn't funny. Whats insane is this guy is the anomaly. There are literally thousands of bigotry/hate-filled videos on youtube and those people go unchecked 9/10. It not easy for platforms to catch all of them unless they get massive views like this guy did. YT does not support hate filled anything on their platform, read their Terms and Conditions. It's not censorship, its their right as a company to monitor and set boundaries for what they want to spread. Hate speech needs a vehicle to spread and the internet has become that vehicle for this generation's bigots.
Again maybe jail time is stiff but if he broke a law in the UK that requires jail time, then those are the consequences he must face. It's amazing how the people defending him are more upset with his sentence that at what he did.
Again, Freedom to speak, Freedom of Speech none of that is a pass to say what you want without consequence. Yes, you have the right to your opinion, but also, understand Saying your opinion publicly can get you into some unwanted consequences depending on what it is and who's listening. There are going to be very few spaces in the world at large where you can spew bigotry and go unchecked. The internet is sadly one of those places.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.