Yeah, you are literally incorrect about this. There are a number of crimes, particularly in the assault and homicide category, that are separated solely by intent.
I used "stealing is stealing" because you framed "killing is killing" as a question of moralistic philosophy and not as one of legal standing.
And independent of the law, a judge can exercise lots of discretion in handing out punishments for specific crimes. So while two people may steal the exact same sandwich, someone stealing it because they're starving may indeed receive a much lesser punishment.
Yeah, but the law does not care about intent in cases of theft, and a judge's discretion is rarely exercised for theft, except to give a harsher punishment than usual. The law shouldn't care about intent in the case of killing either, but the law does not reflect morality. I only mentioned legality because I thought that was what you were basing your statements on (due to wording and the morally suspect consideration of intent rather than actions).
...
You are talking entirely out of your ass at this point.
I really hope I'm not the only one struck by the irony in this statement.
Oh I have no doubt that that's how I'm taken here. That's fine by me, Banta. I lose no sleep.
Is the -gate I see appended to every "scandal" great small or non existent originated by GG? I've noticed it every where and wasn't sure if it originated there or with Watergate or what.
I knew of Watergate and even asked if it was the source as an alternative. I hadn't noticed the use of the term until recently. Maybe I've become more cognizant of it. For instance I remember hearing about Benghazi but never heard it called benghazigate until recently.
(Edit)Also you have yet to judge bacon and it's tastiness.
I knew of Watergate and even asked if it was the source as an alternative. I hadn't noticed the use of the term until recently. Maybe I've become more cognizant of it. For instance I remember hearing about Benghazi but never heard it called benghazigate until recently.
(Edit)Also you have yet to judge bacon and it's tastiness.
It was used a tiny bit in the '70s and '80s, but not much since the actual Watergate was still fresh. Once we crossed into the new millennium and Watergate faded from memory, it started getting used a TON.
Stealing IS stealing, regardless of the context and moral righteousness. Intent and motive do not matter to the law, and neither do the underlying social issues. However, killing in war and killing by civilians are different in the eyes of the law and society, so CoD probably wasn't as good an example as say, GTA.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
This Legalism stuff is just too absurd for words. By any colloquial or dictionary/legal definition stealing isn't just stealing. There are grades and categories, as well as different treatments for different people. Is a teenager that shoplifts treated the same as an adult that does the same? Why is grand theft different from petty theft? Why are some types of theft treated as misdemeanors and other types treated as felonies?
Here is a list of all the different kinds of descriptors that can be used for theft, that anyone could justifiably argue we need:
"The word (theft) is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, library theft, and fraud (i.e., obtaining money under false pretenses)." (Source)
If you live in the US, then because of the nature of our form of government, every state in terms of punishments can theoretically, and in practice does, treat different types of theft differently. Fines may be different, time served may be different, and where the line between misdemeanor and felony lies can be different too.
"For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it." (Source)
We can argue whether the intent in this case matters, but let's acknowledge that the matter lies heavily toward intent mattering than it not.
Blank is blank is a rather bland form of question begging. It is assuming exactly what is in contention. We don't agree. The fact that mens rea is a term in the law that applies to some crimes itself discredits any pretense there is to there is a simplistic definition of theft that is being defended.
Here, I can do it too. Wrong is wrong, so we should treat all wrongdoing the same. Isn't the fact that something is bad mean that we shouldn't tolerate it. How about we take all of the discussion of context and social implications off the table and just discuss how much we hate wrongness. All wrongdoers should be executed. They are all being treated equally aren't they? Isn't that the ultimate justice? They shouldn't be doing wrong in the first place so they will get what they deserve.
None of what I have said here should be taken as an unalloyed endorsement of a legal system where such ambiguities can and do cause problems. Questions of legality and proportionality, of the meanings of crimes, of the tension that sometimes arises between morality and practicality are tough. What freedom of speech and expression mean in a society and how these rights interact with others and the broader society's structures is an important thing to discuss. People have fought and died over these things. That is politics. I am more than willing to discuss that as long we dispense with where this tortured argument has gone. Otherwise we are better off not wasting our time.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al?
Hardly.
Where there is longstanding, systemic discrimination against a class (said discrimination still legally protected against LGBT in most states mind you), then there is an obvious benefit to holding hateful speech toward this class to a higher standard.
Social minority classes are subjected to widespread and often tacitly condoned discrimination. A videogame, for example, where one kills a diverse group of villains of some kind, compared to one where one solely and specifically kills black people, is extremely likely to be aimed at achieving a different goal. The latter game adds to both a history and a day-to-day reality of discrimination where the former does no such thing.
Speech that specifically and negatively targets oppressed classes effects real additional harm unto them. And of course, the people who make such speech are clearly pieces of shit, but that's beside the point.
Speech that is generally offensive or targeting a privileged class is pragmatically held to a very different standard than speech that specifically targets an oppressed class, and for good reason.
but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
The human pieces of shit who make games like that are fully within their rights to make them. But no one else (say, Valve/Steam) is obligated to give them a platform to distribute their piece-of-shit games. Just as I would fire anyone who said racist/sexist things targeting oppressed classes in my office, so too would I ban anyone in the forum who did the same.
Are you really so dense as to believe that making a joke at a white man's expense presents an equivalent harm to making one at a black woman's? Can you really not see why there is perhaps a net positive effect of denying a platform for speech that "punches down" while simultaneously tolerating the converse?
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al?
Hardly.
Where there is longstanding, systemic discrimination against a class (said discrimination still legally protected against LGBT in most states mind you), then there is an obvious benefit to holding hateful speech toward this class to a higher standard.
Social minority classes are subjected to widespread and often tacitly condoned discrimination. A videogame, for example, where one kills a diverse group of villains of some kind, compared to one where one solely and specifically kills black people, is extremely likely to be aimed at achieving a different goal. The latter game adds to both a history and a day-to-day reality of discrimination where the former does no such thing.
Speech that specifically and negatively targets oppressed classes effects real additional harm unto them. And of course, the people who make such speech are clearly pieces of shit, but that's beside the point.
Speech that is generally offensive or targeting a privileged class is pragmatically held to a very different standard than speech that specifically targets an oppressed class, and for good reason.
but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
The human pieces of shit who make games like that are fully within their rights to make them. But no one else (say, Valve/Steam) is obligated to give them a platform to distribute their piece-of-shit games. Just as I would fire anyone who said racist/sexist things targeting oppressed classes in my office, so too would I ban anyone in the forum who did the same.
Are you really so dense as to believe that making a joke at a white man's expense presents an equivalent harm to making one at a black woman's? Can you really not see why there is perhaps a net positive effect of denying a platform for speech that "punches down" while simultaneously tolerating the converse?
I messed up the quote function. That was my mistake. I didn't check when I published this.
The first two paragraphs were quotes from someone else (Ilmarien?) that I was specifically refuting. I am away from my computer so I can't fix it yet.
I disagree that "killing is killing." That's like saying "stealing is stealing" while ignoring the circumstances under which the crime happens. Loaf of bread to feed a starving family and all that.
Or better yet, "drugs are drugs," so possessing an eighth of weed is just as bad as a kilo of cocaine. Or the same quantity of drugs, but one person is using recreationally and the other has intent to distribute.
There is more to an action than just the action - intent and motivation matter, and reflect underlying social issues.
Sure, there are plenty of examples where we draw arbitrary lines. I'm fine listening to Deathspell Omega, who write songs like "Mass Grave Aesthetics" about a generalized desire to see all of humanity die. But when Recluse says something like "Kneel down and accept your sacraments/ of lead and Zyklon gas," that's a different sort of hate, and one with which I'm less comfortable.
Regardless, it's worth discussing because people have emotional reactions to it, and the media is intended to provoke said emotional reactions.
Stealing IS stealing, regardless of the context and moral righteousness. Intent and motive do not matter to the law, and neither do the underlying social issues. However, killing in war and killing by civilians are different in the eyes of the law and society, so CoD probably wasn't as good an example as say, GTA.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
This Legalism stuff is just too absurd for words. By any colloquial or dictionary/legal definition stealing isn't just stealing. There are grades and categories, as well as different treatments for different people. Is a teenager that shoplifts treated the same as an adult that does the same? Why is grand theft different from petty theft? Why are some types of theft treated as misdemeanors and other types treated as felonies?
Here is a list of all the different kinds of descriptors that can be used for theft, that anyone could justifiably argue we need:
"The word (theft) is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, library theft, and fraud (i.e., obtaining money under false pretenses)." (Source)
If you live in the US, then because of the nature of our form of government, every state in terms of punishments can theoretically, and in practice does, treat different types of theft differently. Fines may be different, time served may be different, and where the line between misdemeanor and felony lies can be different too.
Take this example on what theft by finding means:
"For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it." (Source)
We can argue whether the intent in this case matters, but let's acknowledge that the matter lies heavily toward intent mattering than it not.
Blank is blank is a rather bland form of question begging. It is assuming exactly what is in contention. We don't agree. The fact that mens rea is a term in the law that applies to some crimes itself discredits any pretense there is to there is a simplistic definition of theft that is being defended.
Here, I can do it too. Wrong is wrong, so we should treat all wrongdoing the same. Isn't the fact that something is bad mean that we shouldn't tolerate it. How about we take all of the discussion of context and social implications off the table and just discuss how much we hate wrongness. All wrongdoers should be executed. They are all being treated equally aren't they? Isn't that the ultimate justice? They shouldn't be doing wrong in the first place so they will get what they deserve.
None of what I have said here should be taken as an unalloyed endorsement of a legal system where such ambiguities can and do cause problems. Questions of legality and proportionality, of the meanings of crimes, of the tension that sometimes arises between morality and practicality are tough. What freedom of speech and expression mean in a society and how these rights interact with others and the broader society's structures is an important thing to discuss. People have fought and died over these things. That is politics. I am more than willing to discuss that as long we dispense with where this tortured argument has gone. Otherwise we are better off not wasting our time.
Edit Note: I forgot that I can't go in and edit my post so my mistake will just have to exist. Here is how my post was supposed to go. Without this correction, my post above is incomprehensible. I apologize for my poor forum etiquette. I was so busy checking that my sentences were spelled correctly and such that I forgot to check that all my html quoting was correct.
It's not society that banned the game for its lack of substance and hateful message. It was a private organization that made the call, which they are aloud to do. It doesn't hurt that there was no artistic value, no plot, and debatably not much game in that game. It failed at basically everything except possibly being insulting, which was clearly the intent of the creator.
You can always find at least one jerk with a specifically stupid opinion. Unsure why I should care about this particular lunatic who I guess is a Youtuber? Sure, his opinions are stupid and vile. Why give him the time of day?
Never heard of returnofkings.com before I read this article, but now I have. Not sure I needed to.
By "manly men of the manosphere" does the author of this article mean like 10 guys who follow some dude's Youtube channel plus whatever the readership of some obscure lunacy aggregating website is?
I'm not sure if they're increasing, aggregating, or just being paid undue attention. I can totally understand the desire to rebut and shame jackasses like this, but I wonder whether it's just detrimental when if you ignored them instead they might just die an obscure, unread death in their little echo chamber shithole.
Extra Credits rakes the coals over Hatred calling it out for being a "sadistic" game.
Comments are pretty mad. Despite the fact that the creators of Hatred say it has no purpose, no story, no meaning, it's only about killing for the sake of killing without challenge, people want to bitch "Isn't about sadism! It's about murder for the sake of murder and enjoying it in game-form you fascists!"
Killing for the sake of killing without challenge strikes me as the most boring nongame imaginable. Don't most game have some sort of challenge or struggle even if that challenge is only piecing together the story? Sounds like garbage I think I will stick to dynasty warriors if I want a power fantasy. At least I have some kind of objective there.
Comments
(Edit)Also you have yet to judge bacon and it's tastiness.
It was used a tiny bit in the '70s and '80s, but not much since the actual Watergate was still fresh. Once we crossed into the new millennium and Watergate faded from memory, it started getting used a TON.
In any case, is continually showing a different attitude toward speech/art/games against gays and other discriminated-against minority groups helping anyone? Doesn't making that distinction between gay or straight undermine the goal of LGBT activists, feminists, et. al? (The goal being accepted as equal members of society without discrimination for any reason) I'm not saying that hate speech should be accepted or condoned, but banning a game for being specifically offensive while ignoring all the broadly offensive media that exists strikes me as odd.
This Legalism stuff is just too absurd for words. By any colloquial or dictionary/legal definition stealing isn't just stealing. There are grades and categories, as well as different treatments for different people. Is a teenager that shoplifts treated the same as an adult that does the same? Why is grand theft different from petty theft? Why are some types of theft treated as misdemeanors and other types treated as felonies?
Here is a list of all the different kinds of descriptors that can be used for theft, that anyone could justifiably argue we need:
"The word (theft) is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, library theft, and fraud (i.e., obtaining money under false pretenses)." (Source)
If you live in the US, then because of the nature of our form of government, every state in terms of punishments can theoretically, and in practice does, treat different types of theft differently. Fines may be different, time served may be different, and where the line between misdemeanor and felony lies can be different too.
Take this example on what theft by finding means:
"For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it." (Source)
We can argue whether the intent in this case matters, but let's acknowledge that the matter lies heavily toward intent mattering than it not.
Blank is blank is a rather bland form of question begging. It is assuming exactly what is in contention. We don't agree. The fact that mens rea is a term in the law that applies to some crimes itself discredits any pretense there is to there is a simplistic definition of theft that is being defended.
Here, I can do it too. Wrong is wrong, so we should treat all wrongdoing the same. Isn't the fact that something is bad mean that we shouldn't tolerate it. How about we take all of the discussion of context and social implications off the table and just discuss how much we hate wrongness. All wrongdoers should be executed. They are all being treated equally aren't they? Isn't that the ultimate justice? They shouldn't be doing wrong in the first place so they will get what they deserve.
None of what I have said here should be taken as an unalloyed endorsement of a legal system where such ambiguities can and do cause problems. Questions of legality and proportionality, of the meanings of crimes, of the tension that sometimes arises between morality and practicality are tough. What freedom of speech and expression mean in a society and how these rights interact with others and the broader society's structures is an important thing to discuss. People have fought and died over these things. That is politics. I am more than willing to discuss that as long we dispense with where this tortured argument has gone. Otherwise we are better off not wasting our time.
Where there is longstanding, systemic discrimination against a class (said discrimination still legally protected against LGBT in most states mind you), then there is an obvious benefit to holding hateful speech toward this class to a higher standard.
Social minority classes are subjected to widespread and often tacitly condoned discrimination. A videogame, for example, where one kills a diverse group of villains of some kind, compared to one where one solely and specifically kills black people, is extremely likely to be aimed at achieving a different goal. The latter game adds to both a history and a day-to-day reality of discrimination where the former does no such thing.
Speech that specifically and negatively targets oppressed classes effects real additional harm unto them. And of course, the people who make such speech are clearly pieces of shit, but that's beside the point.
Speech that is generally offensive or targeting a privileged class is pragmatically held to a very different standard than speech that specifically targets an oppressed class, and for good reason.
The human pieces of shit who make games like that are fully within their rights to make them. But no one else (say, Valve/Steam) is obligated to give them a platform to distribute their piece-of-shit games. Just as I would fire anyone who said racist/sexist things targeting oppressed classes in my office, so too would I ban anyone in the forum who did the same.
Are you really so dense as to believe that making a joke at a white man's expense presents an equivalent harm to making one at a black woman's? Can you really not see why there is perhaps a net positive effect of denying a platform for speech that "punches down" while simultaneously tolerating the converse?
The first two paragraphs were quotes from someone else (Ilmarien?) that I was specifically refuting. I am away from my computer so I can't fix it yet.
Here is a list of all the different kinds of descriptors that can be used for theft, that anyone could justifiably argue we need:
"The word (theft) is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, library theft, and fraud (i.e., obtaining money under false pretenses)." (Source)
If you live in the US, then because of the nature of our form of government, every state in terms of punishments can theoretically, and in practice does, treat different types of theft differently. Fines may be different, time served may be different, and where the line between misdemeanor and felony lies can be different too.
Take this example on what theft by finding means:
"For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it." (Source)
We can argue whether the intent in this case matters, but let's acknowledge that the matter lies heavily toward intent mattering than it not.
Blank is blank is a rather bland form of question begging. It is assuming exactly what is in contention. We don't agree. The fact that mens rea is a term in the law that applies to some crimes itself discredits any pretense there is to there is a simplistic definition of theft that is being defended.
Here, I can do it too. Wrong is wrong, so we should treat all wrongdoing the same. Isn't the fact that something is bad mean that we shouldn't tolerate it. How about we take all of the discussion of context and social implications off the table and just discuss how much we hate wrongness. All wrongdoers should be executed. They are all being treated equally aren't they? Isn't that the ultimate justice? They shouldn't be doing wrong in the first place so they will get what they deserve.
None of what I have said here should be taken as an unalloyed endorsement of a legal system where such ambiguities can and do cause problems. Questions of legality and proportionality, of the meanings of crimes, of the tension that sometimes arises between morality and practicality are tough. What freedom of speech and expression mean in a society and how these rights interact with others and the broader society's structures is an important thing to discuss. People have fought and died over these things. That is politics. I am more than willing to discuss that as long we dispense with where this tortured argument has gone. Otherwise we are better off not wasting our time.
Edit Note: I forgot that I can't go in and edit my post so my mistake will just have to exist. Here is how my post was supposed to go. Without this correction, my post above is incomprehensible. I apologize for my poor forum etiquette. I was so busy checking that my sentences were spelled correctly and such that I forgot to check that all my html quoting was correct.
It doesn't hurt that there was no artistic value, no plot, and debatably not much game in that game. It failed at basically everything except possibly being insulting, which was clearly the intent of the creator.
Never heard of returnofkings.com before I read this article, but now I have. Not sure I needed to.
By "manly men of the manosphere" does the author of this article mean like 10 guys who follow some dude's Youtube channel plus whatever the readership of some obscure lunacy aggregating website is?
Comments are pretty mad. Despite the fact that the creators of Hatred say it has no purpose, no story, no meaning, it's only about killing for the sake of killing without challenge, people want to bitch "Isn't about sadism! It's about murder for the sake of murder and enjoying it in game-form you fascists!"
Seriously, I don't get the argument.