Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits
- Thread starter James Ennever
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"They're made from the perspective of the developers and creators of games."Atmos Duality said:
I find that statement pretty debatable.
This is the ONLY example you could find?
Emm... yeah that sounds about right. Although the "academic angle" is again, pretty debatable... some of the videos are so hopelessly devoid of anything remotely resembling Socratic dialog or references that it is embarrassing. For example... I remember playing "Myth of the Gun" for an associate of mine, from Japan, who is a medical researcher, Ph.D. and a fifth Dan in Kendo... the look on his face was priceless. Weebo comes to mind.
There both garbage, but at the least, Jim is mildly entertaining garbage... the games equivalent to the national enquirer... EC, is the same, but they seem to "think" they aren't, which is comedy in and of itself.
Thank you for that. Never watched that before but I am inclined to agree form what I have seen.ArnRand said:
Considering that they're developers themselves (or work with developers), I don't really see what's to debate here.mfeff said:
Obviously not. But I'm not going to go out of my way listing every detail over a simple summary criticism.
I'm so happy my opinion has your approval...
They have good episodes. They have bad episodes.
*shrugs*
There aren't really any credible shows out there for general discussion in game design and business. And those that might have been credible are loaded with bias and business fudgery, or they go out of their way to wield hyperbole (undermining the seriousness of any argument they make).
It may not bother you, however some people get very disturbed by it. And having better options in xbox live would NOT be the death of free speech... that's just ridiculous. Last time I checked xbox live was not a major forum that allowed people to reflect and discuss the current political and societal problems in the world. Besides the only people who would get muted would be the trashy, disturbing ones, it's not like everyone would go crazy and mute everyone on xbox live, and the people who were muted could still talk to their friends.James Ennever said:
@Num1d1um
The reason that I claim that you intentionally misquoted me is outlined very clearly in my post. You claimed that I said things that I did not, which would be obvious to anyone reading it. I never called you a nut job before, and I never made any kind of "fight fire with water" metaphor. I never lied about what you said, and I would expect the same courtesy. If you can find an example that I did, please post it, so I can properly apologize, but I can't find a single one so far.
For fun, I looked through your other posts, and you never actually defended my part about yelling fire in the theater before, neither have you yet to post about the bomb threat. In the fire's case, I cannot believe that you would say that it's up to everyone else in the room to think rationally during a potential lethal disaster. You can't possibly expect that from a large group, and even disregarding that, your phrasing doesn't make mention of any punishment to the individual who yells it, which suggests to me you don't think they should face any. To me, that's saying that the girls who made all those accusations during the Salem Witch Trials shouldn't have faced any punishment at all, despite the fact that they knowingly sent people to their deaths. Yes, the people did do the actual murder, but the girls were essentially using the people as tools. Saying that the girls aren't to blame is like saying that it's the gun's fault. You also can't possibly be using that post to apply to the bomb threat as well, because it's a bomb threat. There is no way that the police would ever risk not reacting to it on the chance that there might not be an actual bomb. Searching for a bomb that doesn't exist wastes time and money, and saying that nobody should face repercussions is ridiculous.
I can't understand how a rule by majority is not an argument. It's the foundation of the American political system. It's the foundation of LAWS, period. The reason that we pay police to stop someone from selling heroin or showing porn to children is because the majority of it's citizens got together and said "we don't want this to happen here".
And again, you clearly did not read what I said. My point was not "when someone does something stupid, others will follow". It was "the boundaries of what people consider acceptable is malleable". I wasn't saying that it was monkey see, monkey do. I was saying that if someone in a group acts in a way that pushes that boundary, and nobody corrects that, then they enable it to happen. I bring up the SFXT video because it was a perfect case example. I'm an optimistic person, so I would like to think that his views aren't shared by everyone. But his attitude was never corrected, and it just became the norm for the group. It's not evil, its just apathy, and when you say that there shouldn't be any consequences for stuff like that, your perpetuating that same apathy.
I think the problem you and I have is that you think i'm advocating the removal of any and all insults, or rude remarks, or anything that anybody could possibly think is inappropriate, when i'm not. You clearly agree that we must have some limitations on extreme actions that are purely destructive, such as arson, but you seem to forget that speech is itself an action, and it carries that same capacity of destruction, so why should that one action be given any more protection than any other?
Again, i'm not saying that we should outlaw any and everything that people could take offense to. If you feel the need to state your position that the holocaust never happened, then that is and should be protected. Verbally abusing someone because of their faith, on the other hand, is not, and should not, because things like that DO have effects on people. You constantly remark about why verbal abuse should be protected, but you completely disregard the notion that it causes serious issues with people, and I simply can't understand how you can consider that any less serious than issues brought on by physical abuse! If a parent constantly insults, demeans, or otherwise emotionally abuses their children, we consider that just as horrifying as if they hit them! The real damage done to a woman by rape isn't the physical damages, it's the psychological scars, and emotional damages that haunt them well after the assault takes place, and verbal assault can have the same effect!
You're example of a man in a stadium is, again, ridiculous. I obviously never said that it was the owners responsibility for what the man said, it's the person who said it's responsibility for what was said. Its worthless to try to argue with you, because the difference between us is that you don't feel that speech has any value, that it doesn't have any affect on people. I think it does, and I have the entire course of human history to back my view up.
The reason that I claim that you intentionally misquoted me is outlined very clearly in my post. You claimed that I said things that I did not, which would be obvious to anyone reading it. I never called you a nut job before, and I never made any kind of "fight fire with water" metaphor. I never lied about what you said, and I would expect the same courtesy. If you can find an example that I did, please post it, so I can properly apologize, but I can't find a single one so far.
For fun, I looked through your other posts, and you never actually defended my part about yelling fire in the theater before, neither have you yet to post about the bomb threat. In the fire's case, I cannot believe that you would say that it's up to everyone else in the room to think rationally during a potential lethal disaster. You can't possibly expect that from a large group, and even disregarding that, your phrasing doesn't make mention of any punishment to the individual who yells it, which suggests to me you don't think they should face any. To me, that's saying that the girls who made all those accusations during the Salem Witch Trials shouldn't have faced any punishment at all, despite the fact that they knowingly sent people to their deaths. Yes, the people did do the actual murder, but the girls were essentially using the people as tools. Saying that the girls aren't to blame is like saying that it's the gun's fault. You also can't possibly be using that post to apply to the bomb threat as well, because it's a bomb threat. There is no way that the police would ever risk not reacting to it on the chance that there might not be an actual bomb. Searching for a bomb that doesn't exist wastes time and money, and saying that nobody should face repercussions is ridiculous.
I can't understand how a rule by majority is not an argument. It's the foundation of the American political system. It's the foundation of LAWS, period. The reason that we pay police to stop someone from selling heroin or showing porn to children is because the majority of it's citizens got together and said "we don't want this to happen here".
And again, you clearly did not read what I said. My point was not "when someone does something stupid, others will follow". It was "the boundaries of what people consider acceptable is malleable". I wasn't saying that it was monkey see, monkey do. I was saying that if someone in a group acts in a way that pushes that boundary, and nobody corrects that, then they enable it to happen. I bring up the SFXT video because it was a perfect case example. I'm an optimistic person, so I would like to think that his views aren't shared by everyone. But his attitude was never corrected, and it just became the norm for the group. It's not evil, its just apathy, and when you say that there shouldn't be any consequences for stuff like that, your perpetuating that same apathy.
I think the problem you and I have is that you think i'm advocating the removal of any and all insults, or rude remarks, or anything that anybody could possibly think is inappropriate, when i'm not. You clearly agree that we must have some limitations on extreme actions that are purely destructive, such as arson, but you seem to forget that speech is itself an action, and it carries that same capacity of destruction, so why should that one action be given any more protection than any other?
Again, i'm not saying that we should outlaw any and everything that people could take offense to. If you feel the need to state your position that the holocaust never happened, then that is and should be protected. Verbally abusing someone because of their faith, on the other hand, is not, and should not, because things like that DO have effects on people. You constantly remark about why verbal abuse should be protected, but you completely disregard the notion that it causes serious issues with people, and I simply can't understand how you can consider that any less serious than issues brought on by physical abuse! If a parent constantly insults, demeans, or otherwise emotionally abuses their children, we consider that just as horrifying as if they hit them! The real damage done to a woman by rape isn't the physical damages, it's the psychological scars, and emotional damages that haunt them well after the assault takes place, and verbal assault can have the same effect!
You're example of a man in a stadium is, again, ridiculous. I obviously never said that it was the owners responsibility for what the man said, it's the person who said it's responsibility for what was said. Its worthless to try to argue with you, because the difference between us is that you don't feel that speech has any value, that it doesn't have any affect on people. I think it does, and I have the entire course of human history to back my view up.
Both suck, but I would have to pick Jim Sterling because he's actually somewhat entertaining. Extra Credits is just so pretentious and boring.
Daniel Floyd is an animator at Pixar. Not a game developer.Atmos Duality said:
James Portnow has worked on games, but to my knowledge is not a developer currently. He worked on CoD at Activision, started a now defunct indie studio, and now consults. I like the guy, from what I have seen in his interviews and lectures. His stuff is very "theory", that's not really here or there, but it's not a product, which is what game developer's put out.
Allison Theus I "think" works as an artist or illustrator at Relic... for however long that last... again, it's not really "game development".
The debatable point here is that they "collectively" have never really "put out" anything that remotely resembles any of the shit Daniel talks about. Two career artist and an educator looking to kick start gamification.
But you do concede, that there is enough to detail a listing?
You should be. I get paid well for it.
An interesting assessment in some ways I am of the mind to qualify. Saying that (generally speaking) people that are involved in a thing from a professional level, generally, do not speak out on the work that they do in anecdotal positing. It's a bit of the old "student blabs, master listens... or is asleep... When I see people in the professional or semi professional position discussing what they do it comes in a couple flavors...
Professor - Selling a school or program
Kick Starter/Indie - Pitching an idea for money (fishing expedition)
Business - Pitching a concept looking for audience feedback (leveraging solipsism).
This sort of ties into my own personal treasure trove of philosophy when it comes to "gaming discussions"... which I will offer unsolicited for your pleasure...
"Game Discussion/Journalism" comes in three flavors, with one sub-flavor...
Preview - It's coming... Maybe!
Review - It's here... Prepare to be lied to!
Nonsense - MOST of what is out there... typically opinion offered as a fact, without evidence, merit, relevance, basis... normally this is called "Journalism", many times by people without degrees in such a field, bias as hell without a disclaimer as such.
The sub-flavor is a bias ridden diatribe, normally offered as such... sometimes Jim's shtick falls into this category... there are others... It's nonsense without much pretense as too it's nonsensical nature; this gives it a strange sort of "pseudo merit" as being "at-the-least-honest"... which almost trumps the fact that it is a bias ridden diatribe.
Typically, industrial design (which is what video games are), is quite the boring topic... keeping it surface, keeping it pedestrian makes it "accessible" which is in many ways the direction the industry as a whole has gone and will continue to go.
You may try Game Developer magazine, or making a trip to GDC... heck there are tons of groups that tinker with code and mods... some good conversations to be had there. Alas, to go deep, is often times, to go BALLS DEEP, and that means learning much of the hard technical aspects of it, rather than pedantically debating the nonsense of it.
I don't really care for Jim at all, he feels like a slobby over the top yahtzee. I've only managed to make through one episode of his and it was easily forgettable.
As for wither I like EC more than Jim? Well yes, maybe its that I can't just sit and watch Jim standing there talking at me all sweaty like trying to be cool.
No disrespect I guess, I did agree with the episode that I did see but everytime I do try to get into his show I rarely make it half-way through.
As for wither I like EC more than Jim? Well yes, maybe its that I can't just sit and watch Jim standing there talking at me all sweaty like trying to be cool.
No disrespect I guess, I did agree with the episode that I did see but everytime I do try to get into his show I rarely make it half-way through.
Fair enough. Though it's not hard to see where the "artistic" bias comes from, which was my point.mfeff said:
Semantics and you know it.
He's worked on games or as a consultant for games. Either way is quite a different role from that of the common gamer.
Artistic conceptualization and marketing aren't part of game development?
Why does she work there then? Even marketing would have to work with the developers at some point so that they can sell the game with an appropriate spin.
Either way, she exists on the Supply side of the equation, rather than Demand.
One does not necessarily have to practice what they preach either. It's a common problem with idealism in any subject. I will caution you here: you're close to making a Poisoning the Well fallacy here since my point was about the source of their "artistic bias" and not so much a direct attack on their credibility or authority on the subject itself.
Well, if it means that much to you, go ahead and do a listing. You don't need my permission or help.
Funny. I didn't get a check.
Is it worse to have the masters sleep while the students speak for them?
Or to not say anything at all?
All manner of flavors of critics, with equally numerous opinions.
"Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one, and they all stink."
Jim Sterling's attacks on publishers are catharsis for me, and that's about it.
Whatever else you might take from him is your business.
I don't get invites for GDC since I'm not in the business, and I'm quite busy with University to boot. Though I do attempt to attend workshops when the appropriate conventions roll around (not many to attend in the midwest compared to the coasts). But it's a mere mist to slake the drought.
I will consider the magazine after finals week at university though.
I'll make this short.funcooker11811 said:
People are not comparable to guns, your point on that is void. Why? Because guns do not have conscience. Guns do not have feelings. Guns do not have free will. A gun can not turn around and refuse to fire. By comparing people to guns, you're insulting their ability to think for themselves.
Comparing what we're talking about here to rape is about the lowest thing I've seen yet, and an incredibly obvious attempt to demonize my position. Please. Nobody says rape doesn't have consequences. I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of dishonesty and then put that in there.
I'm not saying verbal abuse/assault doesn't have consequences. I OBVIOUSLY don't advocate abusing children. I'm talking about grown up people that have the ability to fight back. And those are the people you're disregarding as unable to resist by claiming they need to be protected. I think people are stronger than you're making them look. I think that if we stopped giving them this false pretense of shelter, they're more than able to retaliate verbally to any aggressor, and step up. This goes back to the bullying thing. The reason bullied kids don't stand up is not because they can't, it's because their parents and teachers tell them to ignore it, or tell them that fighting back would make them as bad as the bully.
And I'm gonna rephrase my point once again. I did not say speech doesn't have any effect on people. I said the effect depends on the person listening. And by making the assumption that they'll just follow any negative influence, you're making a ridiculous statement about a vast number of people that you don't even know.
By the way, you agreed with me here: "it's the person who said it's responsibility for what was said"-exactly, what was said, not what was done by the listeners.
But then you claim it's impossible to argue with me. It may very well be my fault that I had to rephrase and repeat my point three times now, it may be yours. That doesn't mean it's impossible to argue. And when you go into this with a "I simply can't understand your position!", do you expect to be convinced? Do you expect to get anywhere by starting with that mindset? Try seeing it from my side. So did I. I know what your point is. You want to protect people from harm through speech. You think, although probably not consciously, that they're either not able to take it or not able to refute or hit back, verbally. You think of children and other victims in weakened positions that have additional disadvantages which would make it even harder to resist or take it. You think what I'm proposing would allow these disadvantaged people to be abused. You think nobody would step in by themselves if the law wasn't there. On second thought, you probably don't think that, but maybe you think the help for the victim wouldn't be as strong, maybe you think that without actual police and government intervention, harassment would simply go on. These laws, they were made by people. Like you and me. Those people had those ideas before they were laws, and we'll have them after they're laws. Harassment and bullying is not gonna go wild because its legal. In fact, the cases in which the law, as in the police, actually intervenes are so rare, they're in the news. In the corporate world it probably happens more often, but then again, there, you have hierarchial structures with authorities before the law that can often help without bringing in the state, even if it's simply relocating to another office, or another floor. I could bring up the fact that most rape victims don't report it, but that doesn't fit in, and goes to show how fucking bad that analogy was.
If all my assumptions about your point were dead wrong, correct me, and tell me what your position really is.
EDIT: I know it wasn't short, sorry to everyone who finds this whole argument stupid, deal with the pagestretch.
I like Extra Credits more. While Jim does bring up some really good points now and then, snarky "GRR IM MAD AT !" game journalists are a dime a dozen on the internet. Not often do you get an optimistic show that handles it's subject matter with a healthy dose of maturity; I really miss them being here on The Escapist.
Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?fangface said:
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.
The thing about the two shows is that, while they're both similar, they're also very different in prespective. Jim comes from the angle of the consumer while EC comes from the angle of the developers and (to a degree) publishers. Now, neither show speaks for the entire group they 'represent' mind you, but that's more the way I look at the two rather then trying to do the same thing. They're both good and have valid thoughts which should be listened to. But it's hard to say that either is really right or wrong.
Now, the whole scandel that happened with EC here non-withstanding, I think EC is a better one for the industry to look at. Why? Because they actually work with/in the industry and have a better idea of the internal workings. I don't agree with all of their opinions and haven't really checked out any of the new episodes since the move (I don't care for PA-TV myself) though. They aren't perfect. But, at the same time, having a better idea of the actual process by having contributed to it a good deal before gives them the experience I feel is important for actually try impacting the industry in such a way.
I do like Jim. While his 'bigger-then-god' persona and attitude can make me want to implode, most of the time I'm pleasantly surprised by him when I see an episode I normally think will make me rage. He does a good job of giving a consumer point of view on many topics. I don't agree with him on quite a few things he says on his show. But most of the time he makes them in a way that I can respect and makes sense. Do I think what he says should impact the industry? Yes and no... mainly because I don't think what he says should impact it so much as the people who's opinions he shares should. Which he shares his opinion with many others on quite a few issues.
Now, the whole scandel that happened with EC here non-withstanding, I think EC is a better one for the industry to look at. Why? Because they actually work with/in the industry and have a better idea of the internal workings. I don't agree with all of their opinions and haven't really checked out any of the new episodes since the move (I don't care for PA-TV myself) though. They aren't perfect. But, at the same time, having a better idea of the actual process by having contributed to it a good deal before gives them the experience I feel is important for actually try impacting the industry in such a way.
I do like Jim. While his 'bigger-then-god' persona and attitude can make me want to implode, most of the time I'm pleasantly surprised by him when I see an episode I normally think will make me rage. He does a good job of giving a consumer point of view on many topics. I don't agree with him on quite a few things he says on his show. But most of the time he makes them in a way that I can respect and makes sense. Do I think what he says should impact the industry? Yes and no... mainly because I don't think what he says should impact it so much as the people who's opinions he shares should. Which he shares his opinion with many others on quite a few issues.
Fair nuff, I am somewhat of a rump roast myself. I gotta say tho man; if I like bought you a long sleeve shirt, would you wear it? You're killing me. I want to sit in a corner cuddling a men's fashion magazine, weep and eat cheesecake.Jimothy Sterling said:
Long-sleeve shirts are for people who hate their forearms and for those who are dressed formally. Otherwise to wear them should be considered a criminal charge worthy of intense flogging.Elamdri said:
Well, the unwashed pleb comment was more directed at...well everyone rather than Jim Sterling. I consider myself a firm believer in the idea of a Meritocracy, and I just don't put any faith in the common man's view of things. If I want an opinion on something, I'll ask an expert.Andy of Comix Inc said:
And fair enough, it's a cheap shot, hell he commented on it himself earlier in the thread. Partially I said that for humor at his expense; he seemed to take it fair enough. If it hurt his feelings that much I'd be glad to send him a apology card or whatever. I highly doubt though that I broke his spirit or deeply wounded him by picking on him on an internet forum. If so, he may want to reconsider being an online entertainer.
On topic, I don't care much for the presentation of his show. I do not like the character that he presents; the god-complex just doesn't tickle my funny bone nor does the swearing. I'm not a fan of the drawings on the show either, I just don't feel that they add to the discussion.
I think content wise, his opinions are safe, mass market appeal stuff. When I watch his show, I don't feel like my perceptions about gaming and the industry are being challenged. In essence it feels a lot like the show preaches to the choir. And that's ok, it's ultimately entertainment. There is a lot of money to be made in reaffirming people's views of the world. Look at Fox News.
But the original poster asked: What show should the industry pay attention to more. And I think the answer to that question is Extra Credits. Extra Credits is a show to watch when you want to learn about game design, the game industry and how game publishers, game designers and game consumers interact and SHOULD interact with one another. Jimquisition is a show to watch when you are upset about the latest industry hot button issue and want some catharsis. I just feel that one lends itself a lot more to growing an industry in a way that positively impacts everyone involved.
Is that better? I'll try next time to town down the personal attacks
@Num1d1um
First, that wasn't short. Second:
I understand that people are not like inanimate objects. I'm saying that when a person intentionally causes the death of another person, that if they are the cause of that's person's death and did so willingly and intentionally, then they should be held responsible. I brought up the witch trials because it's a great example of people using speech to cause the deaths of people. Just like a person knows they are going to kill someone when they pull a trigger of a gun pointing at them, those girls knew that their accusations would cause the death of those people. Under your viewpoint, those girls are in no way responsible for the deaths, because they didn't directly kill those people. Those people were not rational, and those girls took advantage of that. Despite whatever you think, people are not always rational. Your entire argument depends on people thinking through things at all times. People do not just go investigate to see if there really is a fire, they leave the building. Some people panic. This can and has created tragedies, and the people who caused the panic knew the danger of what they were doing, and did it anyway.
I only compared verbal assault to rape because of all the posts you have made, the constant theme that I kept seeing was "speech doesn't have any visible effect, so it must not do anything". You never once addressed how it can wreck people. My exact words were that the real damage received from the rape are the psychological scars and emotional damages that come with being violated in such a way, that stay with that person for a lifetime, and that verbal assault can have that same effect, because it fucking can. Are you honestly saying you've never heard of someone being bullied or teased so badly in a high school, or harassed in their daily life that they have a mental breakdown, and either commit suicide or have to go to a mental hospital? It happens because shit like that is not harmless. Its not something that people should just go around using, and its not something that people should be responded to with more verbal assault. Its something that needs to be penalized.
What kind of parent would just tell their child to just ignore verbal assault? Again, you seem to think i'm talking about any and all things that could be taken a negative way, when i'm not. I'm saying that harassment is a completely different than normal speech, and that there should be limitations placed on it. You're saying that it IS part of normal speech, and thus needs to be protected. This is our disagreement. To me, saying that harassment and normal speech are under the same protection is like saying that gesturing with your hands and hitting are the same thing, because in both cases, the basic motions are the same. The difference is the outcome, and what the intent of that outcome was.
Saying that large groups of people don't follow speech is just ignorant. Ignorant of the past, and the present. There are a significant portion of the population that believe that all Muslims are dangerous. Not too long ago, people believed that any other ethnicity was inherently dangerous and evil. Civilizations throughout time have believed that Jews were responsible for all the worlds ills. These aren't just small segments of the population, it was ingrained into their culture, and it was spread because of speech. You may be better than that, but if you think that everyone else is, then you don't know people.
And there is no fucking way I agreed with you with "it's the responsibility of the person who said it for what was said", and I said it in response to you saying that I somehow insinuated that it the owner of the stadium's fault for any of the actions you described. Don't use sound bites to try to put words in my mouth, you're better than that.
The reason that its impossible to argue with you is because you refuse to acknowledge points that you have no actual response to! You STILL haven't responded to why bomb threats should be protected, you gave a single sentence about how you "obviously don't advocate abusing children", but then fail to give a reason how verbal abuse to a child wouldn't be "free speech" under your definition of total acceptance, and you dropped the "majority" argument the second I showed you why that majority opinion is a legitimate indicator of something's acceptability! You say that bullying is just as bad if not worse than it would be if we just didn't have any kind of legitimate policies against it, but you don't have to look any farther the rise of bullying after the introduction of social networking to see what exactly that looks like, because they no longer have to face the same consequences and risks that they would if they did it out in the real world!
I'd also like to point out the inherent contradiction between "the government shouldn't regulate free speech, but corporations should be able to", disregarding the fact that the reason that those corporations have those policies in effect is because of the laws on the books, pointing to the entire corporate culture of "women as secretaries who its okay to sexually harass" that pervaded society in the first half of the 20th century that is now being phased out due to the increase in awareness to the effects of such harassment. I honestly don't know why you would say that it's okay for a corporation to violate a supposedly inalienable right, while the a government should never ever be allowed to. Feel free to explain that one to me.
I really, just cannot understand where you're coming from, because you say that we had those ideas before we had the laws, like that is somehow supportive to your point, despite the numerous examples I have given that show the horrible things that happen with completely unrestricted speech, and why exactly we now discourage verbal harassment. The very idea of laws protecting people from that sort of thing is a very recent invention, in terms of human history, and its something that has dramatically improved the lives of the people it use to effect. By saying that everything was fine before, you ignore the very large, positive impact it has had on them.
EDIT: I now regret posting this in the forum, as I realize that one of us should move this to a message exchange, rather than take up half a page in a completely unrelated topic. Whether or not your next point is in the forum or a message, my response will be in a message.
First, that wasn't short. Second:
I understand that people are not like inanimate objects. I'm saying that when a person intentionally causes the death of another person, that if they are the cause of that's person's death and did so willingly and intentionally, then they should be held responsible. I brought up the witch trials because it's a great example of people using speech to cause the deaths of people. Just like a person knows they are going to kill someone when they pull a trigger of a gun pointing at them, those girls knew that their accusations would cause the death of those people. Under your viewpoint, those girls are in no way responsible for the deaths, because they didn't directly kill those people. Those people were not rational, and those girls took advantage of that. Despite whatever you think, people are not always rational. Your entire argument depends on people thinking through things at all times. People do not just go investigate to see if there really is a fire, they leave the building. Some people panic. This can and has created tragedies, and the people who caused the panic knew the danger of what they were doing, and did it anyway.
I only compared verbal assault to rape because of all the posts you have made, the constant theme that I kept seeing was "speech doesn't have any visible effect, so it must not do anything". You never once addressed how it can wreck people. My exact words were that the real damage received from the rape are the psychological scars and emotional damages that come with being violated in such a way, that stay with that person for a lifetime, and that verbal assault can have that same effect, because it fucking can. Are you honestly saying you've never heard of someone being bullied or teased so badly in a high school, or harassed in their daily life that they have a mental breakdown, and either commit suicide or have to go to a mental hospital? It happens because shit like that is not harmless. Its not something that people should just go around using, and its not something that people should be responded to with more verbal assault. Its something that needs to be penalized.
What kind of parent would just tell their child to just ignore verbal assault? Again, you seem to think i'm talking about any and all things that could be taken a negative way, when i'm not. I'm saying that harassment is a completely different than normal speech, and that there should be limitations placed on it. You're saying that it IS part of normal speech, and thus needs to be protected. This is our disagreement. To me, saying that harassment and normal speech are under the same protection is like saying that gesturing with your hands and hitting are the same thing, because in both cases, the basic motions are the same. The difference is the outcome, and what the intent of that outcome was.
Saying that large groups of people don't follow speech is just ignorant. Ignorant of the past, and the present. There are a significant portion of the population that believe that all Muslims are dangerous. Not too long ago, people believed that any other ethnicity was inherently dangerous and evil. Civilizations throughout time have believed that Jews were responsible for all the worlds ills. These aren't just small segments of the population, it was ingrained into their culture, and it was spread because of speech. You may be better than that, but if you think that everyone else is, then you don't know people.
And there is no fucking way I agreed with you with "it's the responsibility of the person who said it for what was said", and I said it in response to you saying that I somehow insinuated that it the owner of the stadium's fault for any of the actions you described. Don't use sound bites to try to put words in my mouth, you're better than that.
The reason that its impossible to argue with you is because you refuse to acknowledge points that you have no actual response to! You STILL haven't responded to why bomb threats should be protected, you gave a single sentence about how you "obviously don't advocate abusing children", but then fail to give a reason how verbal abuse to a child wouldn't be "free speech" under your definition of total acceptance, and you dropped the "majority" argument the second I showed you why that majority opinion is a legitimate indicator of something's acceptability! You say that bullying is just as bad if not worse than it would be if we just didn't have any kind of legitimate policies against it, but you don't have to look any farther the rise of bullying after the introduction of social networking to see what exactly that looks like, because they no longer have to face the same consequences and risks that they would if they did it out in the real world!
I'd also like to point out the inherent contradiction between "the government shouldn't regulate free speech, but corporations should be able to", disregarding the fact that the reason that those corporations have those policies in effect is because of the laws on the books, pointing to the entire corporate culture of "women as secretaries who its okay to sexually harass" that pervaded society in the first half of the 20th century that is now being phased out due to the increase in awareness to the effects of such harassment. I honestly don't know why you would say that it's okay for a corporation to violate a supposedly inalienable right, while the a government should never ever be allowed to. Feel free to explain that one to me.
I really, just cannot understand where you're coming from, because you say that we had those ideas before we had the laws, like that is somehow supportive to your point, despite the numerous examples I have given that show the horrible things that happen with completely unrestricted speech, and why exactly we now discourage verbal harassment. The very idea of laws protecting people from that sort of thing is a very recent invention, in terms of human history, and its something that has dramatically improved the lives of the people it use to effect. By saying that everything was fine before, you ignore the very large, positive impact it has had on them.
EDIT: I now regret posting this in the forum, as I realize that one of us should move this to a message exchange, rather than take up half a page in a completely unrelated topic. Whether or not your next point is in the forum or a message, my response will be in a message.