Faegbeard
-
Content count
116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Faegbeard
-
-
To me it looks like he was indeed holding a knife, but he sure as shit wasn't 3-4 feet away from them and he wasn't lunging at them. Sure you could justify deadly force if the dude had a knife, but fucking 12 shots? And then the flip over his second-away-from-corpse body so they can cuff him? Seriously?
My guess would be that the officer paniced when Brown started turning towards him, which would also go a ways to explaining the poor accuracy and the amount of shots. The handcuffing was probably protocol, even if it's ridiculous.
You are absolutely correct about the distance and lack of lunging however.
-
holy christ
Edit: I'm reading reports on this and it kept saying that he was holding a knife or something. The video isn't clear but it certainly doesn't look like he was.
It looks like he pulls it out of his jacket at 1:29, at which point the officers start saying "drop the knife" repeatedly. The video isn't clear enough to be certain but from then on his right hand looks like could be holding a knife.
-
This is probably just my weird personal priorities coming through, but I appreciate that Danielle has a very different cadence and pitch to the other hosts, so it's always clear when it's Danielle talking and not someone else, even in sub-optimal listening conditions.
I'm going to be an asshole and state that, for me, the different in cadence makes it harder to listen to, but that's only because I play video games while listening to podcasts.
It makes it slightly harder to subconsiously differenciate between what is podcast and what is game.
-
If you listen carefully to their wording, E3 presenters seem to either say "Console Exclusive", as in "Only on our console but also on PC", or "Exclusive Trailer", meaning "We get to show you a thing but the game is actually it's on multiple consoles; we just wanted to say exclusive again"
It's odd that exclusivity is the thing that they try to use to make people want to justify the purchasing of a piece of proprietary hardware.
-
You have no idea how happy I am. I only found out about this Luigi thing 5 minutes ago, then I went to the podcast page and saw the episode title.
Best.
-
After the description of the iconic cap and the subsequent google search, I realized that for the past week or so everyone at the EB Games (Australian Gamestop) that is across the road from my work have been wearing the iconic cap. Because the staff uniform is also black with a small amount of dark red, I assumed it was just part of the uniform that for some reason required them to start wearing hats indoors.
It is that much of an unremarkable hat.
Now we wait for the MRAs to show up.
By saying this you are inititiating the exact same kind of shit-flinging but from the other side of the fence.
-
On Transistor's lore/story, a quite a bit of it is in the save nodes when you inspect the functions. It's still quite fractured in the way Bastion was though.
-
I am glad that this game is good and that I have confermation that Bastion wasn't a fluke.
-
-
I certainly didn't mean to imply that this is how offense is always or even often created, just that the fact that it's possible to intentionally offend someone because you know that something you can say would be hurtful means that the presumption that it's their choice whether or not to be offended is self-serving.
Of course, and I think in that case it would serve the listener well if they did have the ability to disreguard things whose sole purpose is to incite offence. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with not being able to do so.
Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that offense is not something that is transmitted from one person to another.
I'm not advising that we don't take into account what people find offensive. At least not if you want to remain on good terms with them.
-
The idea of anyone saying that it's entirely the listener's domain to regard or disregard anything that is said to them is so obviously disingenuous I find it hard to believe anyone who espouses the idea has really thought it through.
I implied nothing of the sort. My point is that that idea that offense is created by the speaker and given to the listener is falsehood and does not hold up even under cursory scrutiny. Tycho's post has no baring on that and has little to do with me.
This does not imply however, that I believe that taking offense is unwarranted or a weakness of some kind. People should be offended by things that cause a great grievance to them, that's important.
-
I don't think that differentiating between intent and action is semantic, but okay.
-
I don't think that it's possible for there to be more than intent to give/cause offense. It's possible that I'm wrong.
-
No, I care about what they're trying to say, I just think they're wrong. Additionally, "fucking cunt" is a toothless insult, especially when said over the internet. At worst, they're just calling me an asshole, which is true to some degree. It means even less when it's sole purpose is to offend.
The idea that offense can be given is flawed when someone attempts to give it to me and I do not receive it. It is also flawed in the fact offense is an entirely subjective feeling and not a physical object. While things can be said with the intent to cause offense, it is not something that you can give to another person, no more than you can give happiness, sadness or anger.
If offense were truly given, then it would be entirely up to the speaker whether or not the listener was offended. This is not the case.
-
I get the point they're trying to make, but it sort of falls apart when it doesn't offend me.
-
Even down to the smallest details like the jerrycan which were regularly stolen and used by the British troops.
I just realized why they're called jerrycans. Neat. I knew they were of German origin but I never made that connection until now.
First off, I absolutely agree that it's wrong to associate all of Germany with Nazism. However, I do have one small point to bring up here: I think the Volkswagen is actually caught up in Nazism. A big aspect of Nazi propaganda was trading on the idea of the Volk - "the people" - who were ethnic, "regular" Germans (analogous to the "real Americans" who get brought up in American discourse today). The message of a lot of propaganda was that Jews and "gypsies" were the ones responsible for all the problems of the Volk and that the Volk were the true inheritors of German society. So I think it's tough to untangle the car from that, since it was marketed as the People's Car, with a specific notion of who "the People" were.*
Man, there are other, dumb things I want to say about other stuff from this episode, but this discussion is really good so I won't interrupt.
*Please somebody with better knowledge of WWII Germany correct me if I'm misrepresenting something here.
If I remember correctly, they were sold to members of the The National Socialist German Workers Party (The Nazi Party) for a heavily discounted/subsidized price, so that they could have access to similar transportation as Americans. Those never actually got delivered due to the outbreak of World War II, and the car factories stopped making civilian models and started making military transports to support the war machine. No civilian production models were actually sold until after the war, when the factory was bought by a Brit. After the split of Germany, Volkswagen as a company apparently played a reasonably large role in getting West Germany back on it's feet, since almost all heavy industry had been demolished by the Allies. There was still heavy industry in East Germany, but East Germany was East Germany.
I don't think that makes it hard to untangle from Nazism. The autobahns were constructed under similar circumstances, and were something that Hitler apparently took great pride in, but I've never heard about those being caught up in Nazism. While they were created under the Third Reich, the majority of their existence, maintenance, reiteration, improvement, expansion, and so on, occurred after 1945. While the origin of things is not meaningless, I don't think a good thing being created under an oppressive regime should reflect poorly on the thing in question.
-
Oh, I understand why people could be upset about it, I just don't feel the same at all and don't have any emotional response to it.
"Going over my head" is probably not the best turn of phrase for that, that was poor communication on my part.
-
People being upset about the imagery in Luftrausers is flying completely over my head. I just assumed Vlambeer thought 40's-60's Germany had some stylish aesthetics. Which it did.
Also Vlambeer's response to all the hubbub seems to imply that they wanted those aesthetics to exist in a vacuum without being tied to Nazi ideology.
-
That's true. At the very least in their own minds, if not in larger society.
-
Particularly when I saw that the exact same line of enquiry ("I don't understand" and the philosophical claims of something not really existing or having meaning) was started in the Ep. 152 thread.
The reason I used that language there is because I simply do not follow the logic in the post I was talking about. I cannot outright say that it is wrong because I may be missing something and would like them to expand upon it, so that if nothing else, I can at least comprehend why someone would hold a particular opinion about something, even if I disagree with it.
a good post
Two things though. One, I think the dislike of a certain subset of people is a simple enough thing that it exists completely independent of language.
Two, I'm not sure that re-appropriating terms is what weakens hegemony and robs prejudice of momentum. I think both the re-appropriating of terms and the weakening of hegemony and prejudice are both things that result from a change in popular opinion towards a group of people. While the two are related, I don't think that one causes the other.
To bring it back to the original topic, if it was a widely held view in society that sexual promiscuity was a good thing, then the connotation of the word "slut" would change. I don't think this process works in reverse.
-
what
-
We don't exist in a vacuum. A big part of how we understand words comes from how they are used in society. If I hear a word used exclusively in a negative context, it will have a negative connotation for me. Likewise, if I hear a word used exclusively in a positive context, it will have a positive connotation for me. I see a lot of value in taking terms that carry a negative connotation and turning them into something positive. Growing up, I identified as a nerd but that term was only really used as an insult. Now, nerds around the world carry that title with pride because, for the most part, that term was subverted and lost a lot of its negative connotation.
Well, I think that's one thing that we just thing about differently on a basic level. Nerd for me has never been anything but descriptive term, one that could be used both negatively or positively depending on context and tone. How others apply connotations to words has very little baring to how I think of what they are describing. Maybe I have brain problems.
I must ask though, is it not valuable to have words with negative and positive connotations that describe the same thing?
Anyway, I'm off to bed. It's 4AM and I am far too tired to continue.
Cheerio.
-
It isn't, we covered that.
-
That's a bit broad... Immoral acts are committed through communication all the time, such as coercing people into doing things against their own interest, or using deceit to gain an advantage over someone. Do you really believe what you just posted?
I was talking specifically about fiction and creative works.
Ferguson
in Idle Banter
Posted
Oh, you're right, my mistake.