Forums / Discussion / General

It's a stab at the people crying how unfair & a threat to freedom Thiel backing Hogan but remain suspiciously quiet when Greenpeace & a bunch of other groups were doing the same thing.

I'm not going to cry when some coal plant that keeps pumping way more pollution then legally allowed into the local community gets ass-raped by a Sierra Club-backed lawsuit, I'm not going to cry when Gawker gets ass-raped by a Thiel-backed lawsuit.

If SJWs were smart they'd go for "It took a billionaire's assistance before a celebrity was able to get a revenge porn video taken down! This is why we need feminism!" narrative, but they still can't stop sucking Denton's dick.

Ryan Holiday (author of Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, he knows what he's talking about) has an article on this.

TL;DR: They're scared that all their victims might get similar help and then they'll be as screwed as Gawker is.

Edit: Triple new page get!!!

In during CalgaryExpo's censorship

The expo is publicly funded, and it's illegal to discriminate based on religion in Canada.

Maybe they could go and try to use some legal mumbo jumbo.

But it doesnt change this people, that are all about "diversity", discriminate people, because they dont believe and dont have the same values they do.

THATS NOT HOW INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY WORKS!!!

dontcha know?

"diversity" means "kill all white christuians"

Just look how much Sunset helped! /S

Glad to know we were of help

They must certainly live in an alternate timeline because right now film is at it's lowest and "art" films are shit, and not of the solid kind, but of the kind that is steamy, solid in the outside, and liquid in the inside.

The art films are so bad, they had to nominate The Martian and Fury Road, which are actual movies, at the Oscars last year!

And that's the way, aha aha, they like it, aha aha

Which is why it is a good thing we jumped in and stopped them

Well, at least we have REAL games and not pretentious walking simulators.

They must be in enormous pain due to the immense commercial success of DOOM

What they really mean when they say "diversity".

UH OH.

Well according to r/KiA there's two things:

Gamers are Dead 2.0 is showing up occasionally on facebook, declaring Gamergate as a hategroup against women, again.

And this

So policing words on the internet now from the big tech. WHEEeeee…

So does this mean when the nationalists are swept into power in Europe that SJWs will banned from the internet under hate speech laws?

So to everyone who endorsed this…

So this is happening.

That would require the rules to be based on logic, and I can pretty much guarantee that these rules are anything but logical. The most banal things will be labeled as hate speech.
It will be used as a reason to discriminate against anyone that doesn't kowtow before the SJW/Feminist cult.
If you're straight, white, male, Christian, Jewish, healthy, talented, not-obese, relatively good looking, of sound mind, logical, helpful, or believe that any of the above is a positive trait, they will not hesitate to destroy you.

Oh.

Quinn is still around.

And still allowed in public.

They're letting her talk again.

……….

Should something be done about this or will this just prove to be as feckless as she is?

You do realize it can go both ways, right?

it will always come down to who is in power at the moment

Regarding the second link/point:
Honestly that in and of itself isn't a bad thing at all, by all means fight to make sure it's not abused, but in and of itself it's not bad. Not to mention, like the whole Bahar Mustafa thing shows Psycho SJWs are not exempt. So let 'em get a taste of their own medicine too.

I don't know if you've been looking at the KYM frontpage lately, but one of ours has been spotted at a golf course.

So Sargon of Akkad may face legal action because didn't rape anyone.

Yes, it can. But this is involving the three biggest internet entities in the world, two of which have been repeatedly proven to suppress and discriminate against those who say anything against the insanity we're facing. Anyone who speaks against feminism, anyone who thinks being straight is normal, anyone who thinks being obese is unhealthy, any-male that isn't a self-loathing wimp, they will all be targeted.

The odds of this going well are about the same as finding an albino jellyfish in the middle of a forest.

Any law that limits speech is a bad thing.

Who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

What even is hate speech other than a buzzword?

Nope, and that's exactly the kind of ideological extremism you guys should be staying away from if you don't want to end up like those you oppose.

Opinion

I'm calling it. Yesterday UCLA had a massive protest against Milo's tour that day and his show ended with a security evacuation over a bomb threat

And today there was a shooting at UCLA

Now these events are only related by location but I'm willing to bet that there's going to be a gamedrop somewhere as a result of this.

Other opinion

When it comes to free speech, I'm rather… a stickler over its defintion. I believe free speech shouldn't be limited because any limitation turns free speech into restricted speech. The inclusion of a rule that must be adhered limits the freedom and, thus, makes it… not free, for lack of a better term.

I'm worried about the future of free speech, and that means all speech. The negative needs to exist for the positive to negate and/or respond to it. If negative speech is censored or not allowed to exist in the public area, then it can't be corrected or reasoned with as the topic will be taboo. This will enable the negative to grow more powerful and extreme because it will be discussed in areas that are "safe for it." Able to condense and become groupthink due to alienation and resentment for the censors. Free speech gives the chance of civility, and allows transparency on the internet, suppression only creates a short term solution that can result in an eventual explosive backfire.

That said, I also trust speakers that utilize speech to actively know how to put their conversation out tactfully so that their intent is clear.

End opinion

I don't know. There has to be some limits. I hate to sound like an SJW, but there must be a measure of decency morality at work. There is far more power in words than most people want to admit.

There's a reason that most of the swears get censored on broadcasts and most public publications. Most of them are slurs to some degree or another with inherent negative connotations. They're meant for intense insinuation and emotion, to make a sharper point when normal words fail. More importantly, if you're using them as a passive or positive manner (or whatever, you know what I'm trying to say), they still hold their definitions. That's like feminists/SJWs using "misogyny, literally, rape" and whatever else however they want. Them using words wrong doesn't change the use or meaning of the words, it only shows how uneducated and infantile they really are.

In fact, look at how feminists and SJWs talk. They can't hardly go one sentence without dropping an f-bomb. Same goes for a lot of the people on my campus. One person says something and then it bounces around from person to person like a pinball. "F-this and s-that," sometimes going on for minutes. There are public parks and other venues that have had such an issue with it that the cities involved have put up "NO @#&%!" signs.

The same thing goes for nudity/mature themes, not just in media, but in public too. There's a time and place for it, and it is not in the everyday. If it is to exist, it must be contained so that only an adult can intentionally access it.

…

Bear with me here, I'm really distracted right now.

There are too many contingencies to this for me to cover it all. There is a such thing as "House Rules" but those are only in private venues. However, if that venue is meant to be a public platform where free discussion and sharing is the primary purpose, then there are certain lines those rules cannot cross.

Your actions have consequences and your words have power and meaning to them, both on the internet and in reality. Choose your words carefully. You are responsible for what you say and do. Talk to people online as if you were speaking with them face-to-face.

The only restriction on free speech that always has existed and should be upheld are restrictions on explicit commands to have an individual or group physically harmed in any way.

Freedom of speech has always refered to the right to exercise speech or express anything of meaning with the exception of violence, intimidation or threats of violence (at least in Canada it has, our courts aren't stupid).

Speech or expression is therefore anything that isn't violence or intimidation. Unless we are in a culture that repeatedly need to threaten others or hit them to get anything done, I think this is the only limits on free speech we will ever need.

Man, my grammar has been off today…

This is some insane troll logic at work here

Putin, please save our souls

On the topic of free speech, all I will say is that without it, how are you supposed to know who the assholes are if they aren't allowed to speak their minds?

And they're doing it because of EU laws, what happens when most of the EU is under governments that make Donald Trump seem a bit mild?

Europe is having a massive swing to the right over the migrant crisis, the economic meltdown, and the EU's continuing failures.

@CrashGordon94

No, it's when people start getting in their heads that they can decide what is too awful to be said that they start walking the path of SOCJUS & the Religious Right & every other authoritarian group that people had to fight throughout history.

Some things need to be censored, nuclear launch codes & calling in bomb threats & ordering followers to commit crimes but those are necessary evils, not positive goods.

@Dioxin Jimmy

And then they harm their own cause when they act like childish psychos.

That's how free speech works best, if someone can not make a good argument for their position then they lose influence.

@LesserAngel

It's a lot harder, which is why all those laws against holocaust denial have just boosted neo-Nazis because when you let them scream "Niggers, Jews, Bad News!" they alienate people a lot faster then when you force them to be smart about their claims.

Evolution in action! Force the all but the smartest & most convincing neo-Nazis into silence and you're going to make the next generation of neo-Nazis to be smarter & more convincing.

Criminal Girls 2 to be 'localized'

Looks they're doing it to prevent an AO rating

History time tinfoil hat style

Back during my time at alma mater, (Yes I understand Im getting old) I voulenteered at the colleges radio station that prided iself on being one of the last community freeform radio stations out there. The other being somewhere out in New York I believe. During my brief attempts to give enough hours in a quarter to have a show (never did due to a job and studies) there was a manditory training session in broadcasting, including rules and regulations of what could be said on the radio and what couldn't. (One disaster had to do with an interview on tree safety for the holidays. "Flock it" was used, and it caused a lot of paperwork because of mistinerpretation.)

The reason for this was that back in the late 60's/early 70's there were quite a lot of these stations, supported by community funds to broadcast education, local news and up and coming music from new bands without cooperate money making sure that the latest pop hit went viral. This changed with heavy censorship from the FCC and the Religious Community, and during that time George Carlin did his rant on 7 words that cant be said. As a result some stations played it only to be shut down by FCC complaint process, and with enough messups over time it dwindled to the few we have today.

So what happened to these shut down channels? They were replaced with Religious Radio, which met all the requirements of being community funded, broadcasting "education" and "helping the community."

This is why I'm concerned about censorship. All it takes is one charlatan or a team of deticated zelots to abuse the new safety measure and replace it with their preposed dogma. Sometimes appearing so "hollier than thou" that they recieve little to no consequence for their actions when commiting a clear violation of the rules they instated. Censorship doesnt create a safer world, it causes exclusion that lets extremism thrive. It's happened in the past, it's happening now , and it will happen again.

hat off

And where are those religious radios now?

As said, the pendullum keeps swinging

FM stations around the 90 frequency. They're still using the band that was meant for community radio.

You know, my take on free speech might have some restrictions too. But not based on feelings but on content. I am talking about content ratings, anything should be published or said, but there should be some content ratings, you know, such as NSFW tags on the internet, the ESRB rating, and all that.

Also a publisher might refuse to publish a form of content and a baker might refuse to put a message on a cake. If you want to avoid that, well, DIY.

Finally, one should have some sort of common sense and avoid certain behaviors willingly. You are not going to yell "Cock dick anus cumslut whore bitch balls blowjob!" in front of a group of 4 year olds. It is just common sense.

Other than that I agree with Mundane Matt and Milo, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the stupid or truly hateful people say their crap and they will be either corrected on their mistake or exposed as absurd.

Current happenings:

Someone finally gets it

Sarkeesian elected god of France

1984 is now, it's already too late

The one relating to France hasn't been ratified at least, and it says a previous law the same person tried to push (one that would deny tax breaks for gaming companies this person claimed are "degrading women") was denied. Good lord that person sounds like the French Jack Thompson, only replace "violence" with "sex."

Alright, now I have heard a lot about Gamergate. I thought it started out as some controversy over a girl who would get in a relationship for better reviews for a game then became this overlapping topic of shit. It's been very confusing to follow all this stuff coming at all sides. There's pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate sides that I don't understand. Someone, at a neutral plane, please explain this.

Yes but the problem is when it comes to Radio and TV you are a limited number of possible channels and radio wavelengths. With the internet you can just make a new website.

The problem is the popular youtubers who thrive on youtube are afraid of jumping to a new video service. If you could create a video providing service that could have the same quality as youtube and draw big youtube names away from their website you could take over the video market, especially if you had better copyright services.

Twitch is a good competitor to youtube but youtube still owns a huge market.

It is generally impossible to be neutral on this subject that isn't ignorance on the subject, discontent for both sides of the issue or general apathy of the issue. Thus asking for a neutral person to explain this is kinda impossible.

I'll try to explain this in a neutral stance but quite frankly the evidence is so stacked its going to come off as pro-GG so keep that in mind. Gamergate was coined by Adam Baldwin when he found out by frequent journalistic violations and lack of ethics in general in the media. The catalyst for the initial movement is constant shilling by the media of Depression Quest a game that is literally a bunch of text and lackluster decisions and completely devoid of any meaningful interaction. One of the journalists, Nathan Grayson is heavily involved in ethnical violations and decided to give heavy praise to the game despite being in the game's special thanks section and having actual relations with the creator of the game Zoe Quinn.

Thus the entirety of the argument that continues to be made by gamers and validated by the poor ethics of the media, is that the media needs to reform and actually follow the ethical journalistic guidelines that do in fact exist if they want to claim to be in a positions of power as journalists (this is the position held by pro-GG, and we consider any media misconduct regardless of whether it occurs in the field of gaming, though it helps that the media has restarted the video game violence hysteria).

The media responded to this by making the Anti-GG movement, claiming that gamers were dead because they are misogynists who sent bomb threats (none of which have ever been traced or proven to be sent by a gamergate member) because they don't want women in gaming. Individuals of this movement claim that the media must be correct because the media said so. They claim that experts who have degrees in journalism (most of them actually don't have degrees and aren't qualified for the job) would not lie and would not collude to spread a narrative (they were caught just last year colluding to form a narrative under the guise of Games Journal Pros and continue to be caught doing it). Not helping the Anti-GG cause, many people (who can be called psychopaths/sociopaths) have stepped forth and used the excuse that women in gaming are in trouble to harass as many people as possible. These people are heralded by the media as heros who were forced to leave their homes from non-existent unprovable threats. So thus when accused of cronyism, sensationalism, improper conduct and given the evidence to back those accusations up, anti-GG decided to say "no you".

Well I told you I would try to be neutral but any neutral look at this that actually attempts to examine the issue will find that if this was a debate pro-GG would be sitting at the table trying to have a conversation while anti-GG would be jumping up and down screaming gibberish at everyone while claiming they already won the debate.

And the dead shall rise up to feed upon the living…

There has also been a lot of evidence that the anti-GG's push on the media was planned for quite some time. Many of the aGGros and media moguls had every intention of starting a culture war, and worse, for their own gain.

@ Drunk Iron Sheik

Something I wrote to answer the same question awhile ago.

What is everyone opinion on Forbes?

What did you expect?
London ellected a muslim