We're not talking about "any place". We're making comparisons to The Pirate Bay, which specializes in copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Now imagine there was a similar site called "The Pedophile Bay" that served the same function for child porn. Are you going to tell me the site isn't profiting off the sexual abuse of children, but merely the consumers of child porn?
The Pirate Bay should be left alone. They didn't do anything wrong. We know very well that they are being made into scapegoats for what their users do.
It's all bullshit. They're parasites making profit off the copyrighted work of others. They are not Aaron Swartz.
(A child porn comparison? Really? Weak, dude, really weak. Maybe you could try for a more accurate and less loaded analogy?)
Maybe you can explain why the comparison is wrong? The argument being made is that the middleman isn't profiting off of the base product.
The Pirate Bay is helping the world see that copyright does not work. They aren't parasites, copyright is a bad business model.
They helped themselves to profits off of somebody else's work. If they were doing it for free, you'd have a case. These guys aren't Aaron Swartz.
The real parasites are the Big Media companies who stole works from the public domain by extending copyright again and again, despite that flying in the face of the public interest.
They can both be parasites. It's not an either/or. You'll note that The Pirate Bay isn't about sharing old content that would have been out of copyright in saner times.
They helped cause this backlash through their greed.
Somewhat true, but that's also a convenient excuse for people who just want to pirate stuff.
And, artists will not starve without copyright! There are other ways to earn a living from art.
Perhaps. That's not an argument I was engaging in.
Why aren't you complaining about them?
Sometimes I do. In this case I'm pushing back against the false narratives surrounding The Pirate Bay.
Most of all, these antiquated laws are harming us all.
I would love to see copyright reform, preferably via a much shorter copyright length, increasing registration fees to maintain copyright, etc. However, I'm not going to defend parasites that do their best to thwart copyright and take advantage of the work of others.
Interesting. I'm surprised that one, that they do that, and two, that they get away with it. I wonder if they've ever been sued over it? Maybe it's just a loophole in the law.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Pirate Bay catered to sharing copyrighted material like TV shows and movies, and they gave a middle finger to anybody that told them to remove links. Google is a generic search engine and removes links to copyrighted material when notified.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
It's bullshit. You wouldn't say a dealer in child porn isn't profiting off of sexual abuse of children, and you wouldn't say a dealer in ivory isn't profiting off of elephant poachers. The Pirate Bay was not agnostic. They catered to sharing copyrighted material and were adamant about not removing links to copyrighted material. I'll give them credit for having balls, but they were parasites, nothing more.
Movies could be ultra realistic and show the true horrors of war. They don't though, because that would give half the audience PTSD. The directors are responsible and carefully decide what to show. Why is the same restraint not used in Hitman? Why even have missions where it is possible to do this? Why facilitate it?
I'd say, "Now you've lost all credibility," but you already lost all credibility with your bullshit advertising argument. Are you seriously defending movies with regards to this kind of criticism? There's plenty of the same tropes in movies.
Besides that fact, your "responsible" example is on the morally wrong side. One of the biggest criticisms of war movies is that they don't show the true horrors of war. That's why a movie like Saving Private Ryan was a breakthrough and acclaimed for not giving a sanitized, Hollywood version of war.
And there's no way I'm going to get bent out of shape about Hitman when a mountain is being made about a molehill, when the entire game is about a hitman. The whole game is a fucking murder simulator, and I'm supposed to get upset that one tiny part gives you the opportunity to kill some strippers?
The point if A is bad, B also being bad doesn't make A more acceptable. Your argument is based on accepting the violence is okay, but actually violence that objectifies male characters is a problem too and has been called out as such.
When I initially gave you a chance to make this argument, you didn't. You just jumped straight to a supposed strawman from Thunderf00t. It seems doubtful you really had a problem with violence in video games until the comparison was made.
Try the second part, it explains this aspect in detail and shows the advertising
Please. Those were advertisements for Hitman: Blood Money, which came out in 2006. The mission discussed in the previous video was from Hitman: Absolution, 2012. Claiming, "The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes," after a period of 6 years, is incredibly disingenuous.
And let's be clear about the details here. In the first video, half-naked women are dragged around on screen while Anita says, "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters." In the advertsing from 6 years earlier, we are shown static shots of executed women in provocative poses.
Different version of the game. Different year. Different context (non-target civilians you are encouraged to bypass versus static shots of targeted hits not being interacted with). Different roles (designers versus advertisers). And you're giving Thunderf00t shit for strawman arguments? At least Anita didn't directly claim the clip from the first video was a fulfillment from the advertising shown in the second.
Oh, and one more thing on the advertising: "The game is advertised as allowing you to kill hot women and pose their bodies", that's another stretch on your part. The women in the advertisements are sprawled out in death poses. Yes, they try to make them look sexy, but there's no indication of the Hitman having posed them.
If you have to misrepresent like this, you've got a problem.
I'd also point out that people doing that sort of thing are unlikely to post video of their actions to YouTube.
*snort* What YouTube do you watch?
Anita's point is entirely accurate. The game mechanics give you the tools to treat murdered characters that way. The room with the strippers offers you plenty of ways to sneak up on them, and ways to hide their bodies.
Entirely accurate, except, *cough*, that there's a discouragement that fits in with the rest of the game for doing so, that the easier route chosen by 3/4 of playthroughs missed them completely, and not a single case has been shown of a player killing them, while many other cases of them not being killed are shown. Their bodies are also treated the same as any other objectified body in the game. But yes, otherwise entirely accurate.
Note that this point is not made in isolation about Hitman only. Other games have mechanics that objectify female characters.
I'm not even disputing this. I agreed with it. But my point was, in discussing this example, if you're going to call somebody out on a strawman, get your shit right.
I thought I did address your point. It isn't okay to use lazy tropes that portray women as objects for sexual gratification even after death, and violence against men or that it appeals to men is not a reasonable justification.
No, you didn't address my point. You ignored the violence angle all-together, and gave me one example that doesn't even check out once I investigated it (per my other comment).
90% of it is straw man arguments against things she never even said. Take the "SOOOOO BUSTED" video about Hitman. She never said that the game makes you murder strippers. Her point was that the advertising for the game uses dead female corpses in sexy poses, basically necrophilia. The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes. Sexy female corpses used to sell a game and offered up to the player as toys. Sure, it's not the point of the game, but when even do that?
Ok, if you're going to call somebody out for a strawman, make sure to get your shit right. I just watched, in sequence, the SOOOOOO BUSTED video and the Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 video he shows clips from. Nowhere is it mentioned that, "advertising for the game uses dead female corpses in sexy poses, basically necrophilia." So if that was her point she made a very poor job of making it, or you just made it up yourself. Can you even find a link for such advertising? Because I can't.
Thunderf00t makes the point that you're actually penalized for killing non-targets, and penalized even more for civilians (which the strippers shown in the clip would be). Even better, he says he actually watched about 40 playthroughs of the mission being discussed. There are 2 paths to take, and only about 1/4 went past the dancers (the other route being easier). Nobody attacked the dancers.
And here is what Anita says, "The player cannot help but treat these bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters."
Invoking some mythical advertising that she never mentions, at least in her video, is a bullshit argument. Thunderf00t made good points here. If you can't see that it's your own bias showing.
Now if I were to criticize Thunderf00t I can do so without any bullshit, because he harps on her mistakes/deceptions, but doesn't give her any credit for what she gets right in a 30 minute video with many examples. I basically agree with Anita that there's plenty of examples of females being used as sexual objects in video games. Wow, I'm totally shocked. Just like I'm shocked at all the bullet sponges men are used for, or the nearly invincible, one-man-army hero you often play as. I go back to my original point: She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson.
I just gave you the biggest one that I found salient. Yet rather than address it, you say he has none and give me an example I didn't even bring up. Do you want a real debate or just an emotional, one-sided rant?
Now if only the Internet had a functioning immune response to misogyny, bullying, sick rape fantasies and adolescent jerkoffs whose hobby is making other people's lives miserable.
If only the SJW crowd would stop crying misogyny every time their position was attacked. It's almost like they want to deflect criticism by playing the victim card. No, that couldn't be it.
They're repetitive and I'm generally turned off by his presentation, but he makes some good points.
What it basically comes down to is that Anita is the feminist version of Jack Thompson. If you're ok with violence in video games, then you shouldn't be getting all bent out of shape over female stereotypes that appeals to male gamers.
Flamebait for pointing out a massive conflict of interest in a person stepping outside their area of expertise?
You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?
OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.
Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad hominen.
He literally was weeks away from losing everything. If that Space-X flight had not worked, all his money would literally have gone up in smoke.
If this is true (so far undocumented), then he's an idiot. What's far more likely to be true is he reserved a small fortune so that he could live comfortably for the rest of his life.
Take all that money and just pay off 5% of the population's houses. Those people, now freed from having to grind on the treadmill for their housing, could start small businesses... circulating money in the economy.
Well this is pretty dumb. Housing is a big expense, but so is food, transportation, and all the other miscellaneous things that people routinely spend money on. People aren't going to start a small business just because there house is paid off.
We'd have zero unemployment and a lot more happiness. The economic repercussions would be staggering.
Looks like just another government handout that's supposed to magically cure the economy.
It's a debit card. The fact you can use it to pay for something at the checkout doesn't make it a credit card. There is no credit involved.
It's both. You have the option to use it as a credit card:
"When you sign for your purchases, you get security protections that help prevent, detect and resolve fraud. Many rewards programs also require you to sign to collect rewards points. However, if you PIN for your Visa Debit card transactions, you may not receive the same security protections for Visa Debit card transactions not processed by Visa."
And you'd be factually wrong. There is such a thing as being so open-minded your brains fall out, and you're unwittingly demonstrating this with your false equivalence.
All I'm demonstrating is your tribalism and ignorance on display. You can be emotional and unintelligent on any side of the issue.
His "argument" about Al Gore was hardly nuanced, he's just giving the argumentum ad Goram cover because he happens to sympathize with the deniers, and that's enough in my book.
Right, tribalism and ignorance. I can flip your statement to: "Alarmists have nothing interesting or worthwhile, or even reality-based to say at this point, so there's no point in annoying myself by reading their drivel."
But besides that, he gave a nuanced argument about Al Gore that had nothing to do with denying the scientific position of climate change. Yet you immediately labeled him a denier and ignored him.
It's almost certain the band had innocently re-invented the same sequence of notes.
How do you come to a determination of "almost certain"? It would seem just as likely that they stuck it in there because, as Wikipedia writes, "Until this high-profile case, "Kookaburra"'s standing as a traditional song combined with the lack of visible policing of the song's rights by its composer had led to the general public perception that the song was within the public domain.[30][31]"
What's ridiculous is that such an old song by a long-since dead person is still under copyright.
Ideally, you shouldn't, and cops would always act according to enlightened principles. In reality, cops are people too, and the smart thing to do is not provoke them needlessly.
Should we beat rude people until they are less rude? Put them in prison? Take their property? Shoot them in the face?
Slashdot Mirror
Any place could be linked to child porn.
We're not talking about "any place". We're making comparisons to The Pirate Bay, which specializes in copyrighted material like TV shows and movies. Now imagine there was a similar site called "The Pedophile Bay" that served the same function for child porn. Are you going to tell me the site isn't profiting off the sexual abuse of children, but merely the consumers of child porn?
The Pirate Bay should be left alone. They didn't do anything wrong. We know very well that they are being made into scapegoats for what their users do.
It's all bullshit. They're parasites making profit off the copyrighted work of others. They are not Aaron Swartz.
(A child porn comparison? Really? Weak, dude, really weak. Maybe you could try for a more accurate and less loaded analogy?)
Maybe you can explain why the comparison is wrong? The argument being made is that the middleman isn't profiting off of the base product.
The Pirate Bay is helping the world see that copyright does not work. They aren't parasites, copyright is a bad business model.
They helped themselves to profits off of somebody else's work. If they were doing it for free, you'd have a case. These guys aren't Aaron Swartz.
The real parasites are the Big Media companies who stole works from the public domain by extending copyright again and again, despite that flying in the face of the public interest.
They can both be parasites. It's not an either/or. You'll note that The Pirate Bay isn't about sharing old content that would have been out of copyright in saner times.
They helped cause this backlash through their greed.
Somewhat true, but that's also a convenient excuse for people who just want to pirate stuff.
And, artists will not starve without copyright! There are other ways to earn a living from art.
Perhaps. That's not an argument I was engaging in.
Why aren't you complaining about them?
Sometimes I do. In this case I'm pushing back against the false narratives surrounding The Pirate Bay.
Most of all, these antiquated laws are harming us all.
I would love to see copyright reform, preferably via a much shorter copyright length, increasing registration fees to maintain copyright, etc. However, I'm not going to defend parasites that do their best to thwart copyright and take advantage of the work of others.
Interesting. I'm surprised that one, that they do that, and two, that they get away with it. I wonder if they've ever been sued over it? Maybe it's just a loophole in the law.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Pirate Bay catered to sharing copyrighted material like TV shows and movies, and they gave a middle finger to anybody that told them to remove links. Google is a generic search engine and removes links to copyrighted material when notified.
They profited off of the users that consume pirated data. (S)he who uploads and downloads the data. TPB is agnostic, it's users were not.
It's bullshit. You wouldn't say a dealer in child porn isn't profiting off of sexual abuse of children, and you wouldn't say a dealer in ivory isn't profiting off of elephant poachers. The Pirate Bay was not agnostic. They catered to sharing copyrighted material and were adamant about not removing links to copyrighted material. I'll give them credit for having balls, but they were parasites, nothing more.
Movies could be ultra realistic and show the true horrors of war. They don't though, because that would give half the audience PTSD. The directors are responsible and carefully decide what to show. Why is the same restraint not used in Hitman? Why even have missions where it is possible to do this? Why facilitate it?
I'd say, "Now you've lost all credibility," but you already lost all credibility with your bullshit advertising argument. Are you seriously defending movies with regards to this kind of criticism? There's plenty of the same tropes in movies.
Besides that fact, your "responsible" example is on the morally wrong side. One of the biggest criticisms of war movies is that they don't show the true horrors of war. That's why a movie like Saving Private Ryan was a breakthrough and acclaimed for not giving a sanitized, Hollywood version of war.
And there's no way I'm going to get bent out of shape about Hitman when a mountain is being made about a molehill, when the entire game is about a hitman. The whole game is a fucking murder simulator, and I'm supposed to get upset that one tiny part gives you the opportunity to kill some strippers?
The point if A is bad, B also being bad doesn't make A more acceptable. Your argument is based on accepting the violence is okay, but actually violence that objectifies male characters is a problem too and has been called out as such.
When I initially gave you a chance to make this argument, you didn't. You just jumped straight to a supposed strawman from Thunderf00t. It seems doubtful you really had a problem with violence in video games until the comparison was made.
Try the second part, it explains this aspect in detail and shows the advertising
Please. Those were advertisements for Hitman: Blood Money, which came out in 2006. The mission discussed in the previous video was from Hitman: Absolution, 2012. Claiming, "The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes," after a period of 6 years, is incredibly disingenuous.
And let's be clear about the details here. In the first video, half-naked women are dragged around on screen while Anita says, "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters." In the advertsing from 6 years earlier, we are shown static shots of executed women in provocative poses.
Different version of the game. Different year. Different context (non-target civilians you are encouraged to bypass versus static shots of targeted hits not being interacted with). Different roles (designers versus advertisers). And you're giving Thunderf00t shit for strawman arguments? At least Anita didn't directly claim the clip from the first video was a fulfillment from the advertising shown in the second.
Oh, and one more thing on the advertising: "The game is advertised as allowing you to kill hot women and pose their bodies", that's another stretch on your part. The women in the advertisements are sprawled out in death poses. Yes, they try to make them look sexy, but there's no indication of the Hitman having posed them.
If you have to misrepresent like this, you've got a problem.
I'd also point out that people doing that sort of thing are unlikely to post video of their actions to YouTube.
*snort* What YouTube do you watch?
Anita's point is entirely accurate. The game mechanics give you the tools to treat murdered characters that way. The room with the strippers offers you plenty of ways to sneak up on them, and ways to hide their bodies.
Entirely accurate, except, *cough*, that there's a discouragement that fits in with the rest of the game for doing so, that the easier route chosen by 3/4 of playthroughs missed them completely, and not a single case has been shown of a player killing them, while many other cases of them not being killed are shown. Their bodies are also treated the same as any other objectified body in the game. But yes, otherwise entirely accurate.
Note that this point is not made in isolation about Hitman only. Other games have mechanics that objectify female characters.
I'm not even disputing this. I agreed with it. But my point was, in discussing this example, if you're going to call somebody out on a strawman, get your shit right.
I thought I did address your point. It isn't okay to use lazy tropes that portray women as objects for sexual gratification even after death, and violence against men or that it appeals to men is not a reasonable justification.
No, you didn't address my point. You ignored the violence angle all-together, and gave me one example that doesn't even check out once I investigated it (per my other comment).
Mission failed!
o Restart mission
o Quit
90% of it is straw man arguments against things she never even said. Take the "SOOOOO BUSTED" video about Hitman. She never said that the game makes you murder strippers. Her point was that the advertising for the game uses dead female corpses in sexy poses, basically necrophilia. The game then allows you to do what the advertising promotes. Sexy female corpses used to sell a game and offered up to the player as toys. Sure, it's not the point of the game, but when even do that?
Ok, if you're going to call somebody out for a strawman, make sure to get your shit right. I just watched, in sequence, the SOOOOOO BUSTED video and the Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 video he shows clips from. Nowhere is it mentioned that, "advertising for the game uses dead female corpses in sexy poses, basically necrophilia." So if that was her point she made a very poor job of making it, or you just made it up yourself. Can you even find a link for such advertising? Because I can't.
Thunderf00t makes the point that you're actually penalized for killing non-targets, and penalized even more for civilians (which the strippers shown in the clip would be). Even better, he says he actually watched about 40 playthroughs of the mission being discussed. There are 2 paths to take, and only about 1/4 went past the dancers (the other route being easier). Nobody attacked the dancers.
And here is what Anita says, "The player cannot help but treat these bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female virtual characters."
Invoking some mythical advertising that she never mentions, at least in her video, is a bullshit argument. Thunderf00t made good points here. If you can't see that it's your own bias showing.
Now if I were to criticize Thunderf00t I can do so without any bullshit, because he harps on her mistakes/deceptions, but doesn't give her any credit for what she gets right in a 30 minute video with many examples. I basically agree with Anita that there's plenty of examples of females being used as sexual objects in video games. Wow, I'm totally shocked. Just like I'm shocked at all the bullet sponges men are used for, or the nearly invincible, one-man-army hero you often play as. I go back to my original point: She's the feminist version of Jack Thompson.
Thunderf00t doesn't make any good points.
I just gave you the biggest one that I found salient. Yet rather than address it, you say he has none and give me an example I didn't even bring up. Do you want a real debate or just an emotional, one-sided rant?
Now if only the Internet had a functioning immune response to misogyny, bullying, sick rape fantasies and adolescent jerkoffs whose hobby is making other people's lives miserable.
If only the SJW crowd would stop crying misogyny every time their position was attacked. It's almost like they want to deflect criticism by playing the victim card. No, that couldn't be it.
Thunderf00t's are particularly bad.
They're repetitive and I'm generally turned off by his presentation, but he makes some good points.
What it basically comes down to is that Anita is the feminist version of Jack Thompson. If you're ok with violence in video games, then you shouldn't be getting all bent out of shape over female stereotypes that appeals to male gamers.
Flamebait for pointing out a massive conflict of interest in a person stepping outside their area of expertise?
You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?
OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.
Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad hominen.
He literally was weeks away from losing everything. If that Space-X flight had not worked, all his money would literally have gone up in smoke.
If this is true (so far undocumented), then he's an idiot. What's far more likely to be true is he reserved a small fortune so that he could live comfortably for the rest of his life.
Take all that money and just pay off 5% of the population's houses. Those people, now freed from having to grind on the treadmill for their housing, could start small businesses... circulating money in the economy.
Well this is pretty dumb. Housing is a big expense, but so is food, transportation, and all the other miscellaneous things that people routinely spend money on. People aren't going to start a small business just because there house is paid off.
We'd have zero unemployment and a lot more happiness. The economic repercussions would be staggering.
Looks like just another government handout that's supposed to magically cure the economy.
It's a debit card. The fact you can use it to pay for something at the checkout doesn't make it a credit card. There is no credit involved.
It's both. You have the option to use it as a credit card:
"When you sign for your purchases, you get security protections that help prevent, detect and resolve fraud. Many rewards programs also require you to sign to collect rewards points. However, if you PIN for your Visa Debit card transactions, you may not receive the same security protections for Visa Debit card transactions not processed by Visa."
Lars started the band. His drums are fine. I think you're giving him shit because he was the face of the Napster suit.
What makes you think they're stupid?
And you'd be factually wrong. There is such a thing as being so open-minded your brains fall out, and you're unwittingly demonstrating this with your false equivalence.
All I'm demonstrating is your tribalism and ignorance on display. You can be emotional and unintelligent on any side of the issue.
His "argument" about Al Gore was hardly nuanced, he's just giving the argumentum ad Goram cover because he happens to sympathize with the deniers, and that's enough in my book.
On display.
Right, tribalism and ignorance. I can flip your statement to: "Alarmists have nothing interesting or worthwhile, or even reality-based to say at this point, so there's no point in annoying myself by reading their drivel."
But besides that, he gave a nuanced argument about Al Gore that had nothing to do with denying the scientific position of climate change. Yet you immediately labeled him a denier and ignored him.
"tribalism and ignorance"
It's almost certain the band had innocently re-invented the same sequence of notes.
How do you come to a determination of "almost certain"? It would seem just as likely that they stuck it in there because, as Wikipedia writes, "Until this high-profile case, "Kookaburra"'s standing as a traditional song combined with the lack of visible policing of the song's rights by its composer had led to the general public perception that the song was within the public domain.[30][31]"
What's ridiculous is that such an old song by a long-since dead person is still under copyright.
It was one of their major selling points in the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercial campaing.
And why should you have to?
Ideally, you shouldn't, and cops would always act according to enlightened principles. In reality, cops are people too, and the smart thing to do is not provoke them needlessly.
Should we beat rude people until they are less rude? Put them in prison? Take their property? Shoot them in the face?
Of course not.