Yes, according to an institution where the world's most corrupt leaders vastly outnumber the West, where mass-murderers head the "Human Rights" council and where Israel is held up to vastly higher standards than the rest.
OK, if you don't believe the UN, let's ask some Jews:
Or, you directly heard it on Fox News. Nobody wants to take away our guns.
I'm a gun owner too, for more than 40 years now. I've qualified as Marksman twice and Sharpshooter once. I support gun control laws because the United States has a much, much higher gun violence rate than all other developed nations and a lot of third-world hell holes. So clearly, guns are getting in the wrong hands. And brother, all of those guns in the hands of gang bangers and oath keepers started out life as "legal" guns.
Maybe I haven't felt the breath of Big Government Trying To Take My Guns because I'm not some jackoff open-carrying a Bushmaster through Wal-Mart. I'm just a regular gun owner who is not prone to hysteria from gun industry shill groups like the NRA (who once supported sensible gun laws before the big gun industry money started flowing in).
I look Asian, Vietnamese really - maybe a skinny Polynesian. I have sort of black hair - I can make a 'fro like a mofo.
So, you can pass as Sicilian. Cool. Come to Chicago and I'll take you to a place that makes the best babbaluci on the continent.
Oddly, for the most part, the cops seem pretty laid back there.
To be fair, a lot of 'em are probably high. If you were a cop in Florida, wouldn't you be?
dispatch: "Car 54, we've got a 8-36b out on 41" officer: "Uh, dispatch, what's an 8-36b again?" dispatch: "A man dressed in a clown suit having sex with an underage alligator." officer: "OK, dispatch, we're on our way as soon as I can fire one up."
So leave israel out of your fucking snide remarks and spend your energy on more serious problems like the fucking fundamentalist that want nothing less but to chop your infidel head off.
I live in the Northern part of the US, so I don't really encounter a lot of the fundamentalists. They're only a small percentage of Christians, anyway.
I know some youngins that instantly recognize the name "Mario" and are even fairly familiar with the first NES Mario game from 1985, a good 15 years before they were born.
Those same youngins don't even know the name Roger Ebert, Stanley Kubrick, or Beethoven.
Of course they'd know Mario. He went on to become the primary mascot of one of the three big console companies. That character is a property that's used to sell products to kids. Don't you think that's more a function of marketing than any enduring artistic legacy? They probably know the names of all the minions, too. Precious few of them are playing the NES Mario game from 1985 without prodding from their GenX parents.
I find it funny that you didn't even know the name of that "NES Mario game from 1985". That shows you how much enduring effect it has had.
the early days of film, the medium was derided and considered as nothing more than a diversionary form of entertainment (basically pablum) even after many films that are today considered works of art had been created. As late as the 1930s many film theorists were spending their efforts defending the contention that film could be a legitimate art medium.
Birth of a Nation was 1915. Broken Blossoms was 1916. Der Golem was 1920. The Great Train Robbery was 1903. Le voyage dans la lune was 1902.
These films are still studied - and enjoyed - today.
. You can not tell me that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (1999) is not a work of art -- it is actually more thought-provoking than practically any Hollywood movie released in the past century.
You must not have seen a lot of the great films of the past century. Nobody is going to be studying - or enjoying - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 100 years from now. Unless of course, video games never achieve the next level of artistic development, and then it will be studied as a curiosity.
My son, the astronaut. He never calls. He never writes. Something about delays, transmission delays maybe, i don't know, but never calls, doesn't write eithuh, no never, and what am I, chopped liveh? He couldn't stay on earth, and take care of his mother, like a good boy, no, he had to go gallavanting all over like a big shot, while I sit here, no one to take care of me... Not like my husband, Mortimer. Mortimer! MORTIMER! BRING ME MY TEA!
You sound verklempt, bubbeleh. Unless you're just hakn a tshaynik.
I once pissed, drunkenly I might add, on the wheel of a cruiser while the cop was still in it - I didn't realize he was in it. In fact, I didn't notice him until he said something. He took me into an alley and we had a discussion but he didn't beat me up or anything.
And that is what's known as "white privilege". I get the feeling that if you were a young black man, we'd be hearing about how you "tried to take away his service weapon". In Florida, the cop would have gotten a medal and a gift certificate for the Waffle Hut.
His friends or family may have asked him to stop carrying a dangerous weapon, but he sounds like a smart, responsible gun-owner, who probably lives in a dangerous area.
I'll bite. Give up your gun. You don't need it. Last year there were 100 burglaries with homicides involved; there were 18,000 suicides and 90,000 gun injuries. You are much more likely to shoot yourself or someone accidentally than you are to actually need to use your gun. Give up your gun.
The question was: What was the last time someone asked you to give up your gun?
movies are not true art. There is a reason why certain films are referred to as artistic pieces. They were created purely to be appreciated, not specifically for enjoyment.
That's an artificial distinction. You can appreciate the best painting or music or theater as well as enjoy it. The best movies can be appreciated as art and enjoyed. I don't think "appreciation" and enjoyment are mutually exclusive.
I think it's the ability of a work to endure and cross generational and even cultural barriers that makes a work a true "work of art" in the sense of fine art.
I had a soldier bring his personal firearm to the reserve center, and accidently shoot the house next door. You can train and train someone, and they will go off and do something stupid anyway.
We don't need the likes of Roger Ebert to recognize us.
Yes, you kind of do. Even Bioshock (specifically the first one), a game with clever (but derivative) art, and a clever (but derivative) story, was really just a low pop confection. There is still a long way to go.
I find it hard to understand why "are games art?" strikes anyone as enough of a question to even be asked. Unless you hew to a far narrower definition of 'art' than even most critics and artists do; it seems pretty obvious that they have the potential to qualify.
This doesn't mean that most of them are anything but sophomoric schlock produced entirely for mercenary purposes; but the same is true of music, film, photography, etc. and nobody seriously advances the "Music can't be art; because boy bands and pop tarts!" position or argues that Uwe Boll refutes the artistic status of film.
You managed to say in two short paragraphs what I could barely say in three times as many words. You get it.
I think games utilize art. Textures are art, the music is art, the plot line may be art. But a game itself is a computer program that brings all these different types of art together into a form of entertainment.
Here's the thing: the word "art" is used to mean different things. It can be "state of the art" or "term of art" or the notion that the pictures my daughter drew with crayons when she was four were art.
When Roger Ebert complained about games not being art last decade, he was lamenting how little had been done with this amazing medium, and he was absolutely right. Within the first 20 years of the medium of film, there were several works of fine art that are still studied and appreciated today. Video games are more than 20 years old, and there's precious little from the medium to point to as something that will endure. And this is not the fault of the artists and developers working in games. It's the fault of a corporatism that has not served the medium well. And to some extent, it's the fault of the gamers themselves, many of whom are provincial in their outlook, and have undemanding tastes. Part of this is because it's a medium that has catered to kids. And when those kids grow up, they seek to recreate their childhood experiences with games. So you get childish games and childish gamers.
Video games are certainly capable of being seen as fine art. Unfortunately, their own success and corporate provenance are the biggest hurdles they face on the way to getting there.
We had this debate back in 2010 when Roger Ebert attacked video games.
When Roger Ebert attacked video games, they were a low, popular medium. Not "art" in the sense that he was talking about as something with lasting value across generational and even cultural lines.
Video games have come a long way. But as with most things, corporate influence is squeezing out any possibility of art. Because art doesn't come with a guarantee of profit (although profit is certainly possible). There's a level of risk-taking to art that only marginal games can abide, and almost all of them suck.
Also, games current dependence on consoles by 2 or 3 corporations will also not allow art to happen in the gaming space. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen on a more accessible platform on which to develop.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, if you don't believe the UN, let's ask some Jews:
http://livefromoccupiedpalesti...
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/2...
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Z...
Now please do your best to make ad hominem attacks on those voices, since you don't have any substantive argument to make.
Or, you directly heard it on Fox News. Nobody wants to take away our guns.
I'm a gun owner too, for more than 40 years now. I've qualified as Marksman twice and Sharpshooter once. I support gun control laws because the United States has a much, much higher gun violence rate than all other developed nations and a lot of third-world hell holes. So clearly, guns are getting in the wrong hands. And brother, all of those guns in the hands of gang bangers and oath keepers started out life as "legal" guns.
Maybe I haven't felt the breath of Big Government Trying To Take My Guns because I'm not some jackoff open-carrying a Bushmaster through Wal-Mart. I'm just a regular gun owner who is not prone to hysteria from gun industry shill groups like the NRA (who once supported sensible gun laws before the big gun industry money started flowing in).
ISIS and Hamas are enemies.
If you can register it, you're not being asked to give it up.
So, they can keep their guns until they die? How is that the same as "being asked to give up their guns" if they can keep them until they die?
Even the most dedicated gun enthusiast isn't taking his gun with him into the next life.
So, you can pass as Sicilian. Cool. Come to Chicago and I'll take you to a place that makes the best babbaluci on the continent.
To be fair, a lot of 'em are probably high. If you were a cop in Florida, wouldn't you be?
dispatch: "Car 54, we've got a 8-36b out on 41"
officer: "Uh, dispatch, what's an 8-36b again?"
dispatch: "A man dressed in a clown suit having sex with an underage alligator."
officer: "OK, dispatch, we're on our way as soon as I can fire one up."
I live in the Northern part of the US, so I don't really encounter a lot of the fundamentalists. They're only a small percentage of Christians, anyway.
Of course they'd know Mario. He went on to become the primary mascot of one of the three big console companies. That character is a property that's used to sell products to kids. Don't you think that's more a function of marketing than any enduring artistic legacy? They probably know the names of all the minions, too. Precious few of them are playing the NES Mario game from 1985 without prodding from their GenX parents.
I find it funny that you didn't even know the name of that "NES Mario game from 1985". That shows you how much enduring effect it has had.
I stand corrected. Are you Sicilian like me?
Birth of a Nation was 1915. Broken Blossoms was 1916. Der Golem was 1920. The Great Train Robbery was 1903. Le voyage dans la lune was 1902.
These films are still studied - and enjoyed - today.
You must not have seen a lot of the great films of the past century. Nobody is going to be studying - or enjoying - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 100 years from now. Unless of course, video games never achieve the next level of artistic development, and then it will be studied as a curiosity.
But that's not all the only place they build, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I know the state of Israel has difficulty with the whole concept of "national borders", but outer space? Really? Here come the settlements.
You sound verklempt, bubbeleh. Unless you're just hakn a tshaynik.
And that is what's known as "white privilege". I get the feeling that if you were a young black man, we'd be hearing about how you "tried to take away his service weapon". In Florida, the cop would have gotten a medal and a gift certificate for the Waffle Hut.
Yes, this. Unfortunately, our leaders seem to have an insatiable appetite for sending other people's kids off to unnecessary wars.
One I assume can answer for himself.
If you decided to move to New Jersey, then you wouldn't exactly be "FORCED" to do anything, would you?
The question was: What was the last time someone asked you to give up your gun?
I think you're proving my point.
That's an artificial distinction. You can appreciate the best painting or music or theater as well as enjoy it. The best movies can be appreciated as art and enjoyed. I don't think "appreciation" and enjoyment are mutually exclusive.
I think it's the ability of a work to endure and cross generational and even cultural barriers that makes a work a true "work of art" in the sense of fine art.
The last totalitarian shot with a private weapon in the US was Ronald Reagan.
That's for sure. Just ask Chris Kyle.
That's a quality red herring right there. What was the last time anyone has asked you to give up your gun?
Yes, you kind of do. Even Bioshock (specifically the first one), a game with clever (but derivative) art, and a clever (but derivative) story, was really just a low pop confection. There is still a long way to go.
If only that were so.
You managed to say in two short paragraphs what I could barely say in three times as many words. You get it.
Here's the thing: the word "art" is used to mean different things. It can be "state of the art" or "term of art" or the notion that the pictures my daughter drew with crayons when she was four were art.
When Roger Ebert complained about games not being art last decade, he was lamenting how little had been done with this amazing medium, and he was absolutely right. Within the first 20 years of the medium of film, there were several works of fine art that are still studied and appreciated today. Video games are more than 20 years old, and there's precious little from the medium to point to as something that will endure. And this is not the fault of the artists and developers working in games. It's the fault of a corporatism that has not served the medium well. And to some extent, it's the fault of the gamers themselves, many of whom are provincial in their outlook, and have undemanding tastes. Part of this is because it's a medium that has catered to kids. And when those kids grow up, they seek to recreate their childhood experiences with games. So you get childish games and childish gamers.
Video games are certainly capable of being seen as fine art. Unfortunately, their own success and corporate provenance are the biggest hurdles they face on the way to getting there.
When Roger Ebert attacked video games, they were a low, popular medium. Not "art" in the sense that he was talking about as something with lasting value across generational and even cultural lines.
Video games have come a long way. But as with most things, corporate influence is squeezing out any possibility of art. Because art doesn't come with a guarantee of profit (although profit is certainly possible). There's a level of risk-taking to art that only marginal games can abide, and almost all of them suck.
Also, games current dependence on consoles by 2 or 3 corporations will also not allow art to happen in the gaming space. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen on a more accessible platform on which to develop.