Luftmensch

There is such a legal entity as a Self Regulating Organization, which does have special powers, but that's misleading because we're talking about a system that's literally completely self-regulated. We're talking about enforced regulation of creative expression, not financial securities. In this country, that's illegal, with the notable exception of broadcasts over public airwaves (ShitPissFuckCuntCocksuckerMotherfuckerTits), and the provisions granted by copyrights. Also pornography isn't considered creative expression, which is arguable but it's been settled ages ago. Anywayyou'rewrongkthxbai

He was slightly off in calling it government evaluation, but this case would be just as bad (for a nice little expose on some of the problems with ratings boards, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated). Forcing evaluation on one particular medium, regardless of which organization is doing the evaluation, is a gross restriction of free expression. I don't think this is necessarily a completely insidious bill, just completely ill-advised: The sponsor of the bill is Representative Jim Matheson, who doesn't seem to be getting funding from the entertainment industry or the NRA, and, predictably for a Utah rep, his biggest campaign financiers are Pharmaceutical companies, and to-date there don't appear to be any contributions linked with this bill. I think he's just catering to his Mormon constituents, and I doubt it'll even get past the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. By the way, here's a link to the bill's official web page if you want to keep track on the official progress. Atm there isn't any. I think Argobot is right in thinking this'll just die off without a second thought.

If its not shut down in voting I'll be enormously surprised if the EFF doesn't get it scratched for being completely unconstitutional.

This is brilliant. By the end if the fruitcake exchange, every thumbs reader will be friends with each other.

I was gifted some fruitcake and somehow I ended up with another copy, so hmu if you need The Ship.

Thirded. Seconded, but with the amendment that any podcast that does that is delicious in my book. You Look Nice Today is that kind of podcast.

Hey I just listened to that podcast you were in. What was Sean's idea that you didn't say on the podcast? I'd like to know what kind of stupid ideas you had. Maybe you've mentioned it somewhere already.

At least there's a desire among many game developers to create more non-violent experiences, and even though the AAA space is still dominated by ostensibly or even passively violent verbs (for example, smashing crates to get the powerups inside), the diversity of experience is larger than ever between the indie scene, Facebook games, mobile games, and the like. It's pretty deeply rooted, and a lot of systems would be too abstract if they weren't violent (even Whale Trail of all things is about a whale getting hit by lightning and running from an evil whale-eating monster), but between conscious efforts on the part of devs and the natural cultural evolution, we're in good shape in the long run.

Still waiting for some fruitcake.

I didn't see this in the search: Bad Lip Reads

Here's a link to the podcast sclpls was talking about (I stupidly couldn't find it on iTunes because they spelled Round Table out as two words)

Yeah I think it's more consistently useful to say that "crazy people kill people" than to say "violent media inspires killings" (though that's an oversimplification). I think there's some value to making a conscious effort to eschew violence, in the same way that it's valuable to consciously avoid casual racism or sexism, but in any case the violence in the media is probably more a symptom of the problem than a cause by itself. Since this thread is so rife with flimsy analogies, I'll throw one in: Violence is like herpes. It's always there, and it can always spread, but it spreads more easily when you have an outbreak and you can see it. Also, I guess oral violence is more widespread throughout society because kissing with a dental dam is silly?

I'm intrigued by the general consensus that I must just be completely ignorant or just yanking your chain. I would never approach the same discussion from the skeptic's viewpoint if the discussion was with people I thought were inclined to dismiss sexism as rubbish that women make up to get attention (and I certainly know people who think that way). Because sexists don't need to be fed validation. I'd like to be able to say I'm the type of person who will stand up and tell people off, but in practice I'm really more the type to quietly change the subject. Everybody has their faults. On the other hand, when I know I'm talking to someone who's feminist to the bone and knows where they stand, I'll be glad to argue or pick at semantics because it's an internally valuable discussion. Once everyone knows the data, understands the problems, and is just generally aware, then it's worthwhile to start to pick apart, "what could we be getting wrong?" As it happens, I value and read feminist literature a lot because I know I have a lot to learn and can never fully comprehend the experience of being a woman, or a transgender or intersex person, or an Asian-American raised in Dallas for that matter. So your assumption that I just don't understand? You're spot on. I don't. I identify as feminist because feminism, as I understand it, matches my views and beliefs. I also read and find a lot of value in dissident feminists (sometimes I hear them called antifeminists but that seems a bit loaded). A lot of people feel like feminism itself has hurt them. Some people blame certain segments of feminism or particular feminist groups. Either way, the experiences these people have are still completely valid. I think the material might be somewhat counterproductive when it's just feeding the prejudices of sexist people, but for feminism itself they're still perfectly valid criticisms. That's important to remember. So normally when I have these discussions, it's with friends who already know where I stand on feminism and I know are open to the thought. I skipped the step of garnering mutual respect and understanding, so likely that's the problem, though as with everything else in the world, I can't verify that's why the discussion went the direction it did versus it's usual course. It's unfortunate that you collectively dismissed my dissent as ignorance, but on reflection in context perhaps it was the appropriate or predictable response. (relating back to the thread about Hitler I posted, that entire discussion was valuable because nobody in the thread was a Nazi sympathizer or thought that Hitler was a great guy. It doesn't work otherwise. It's not exactly the same thing, but noone is going to take the discussion as a launching pad to explain how Hitler was such a great inspiration or that sexism is a liberal media lie)

You're almost there mate. So close. Just take it one step further. I've never called anyone's experiences invalid. I've called everyone's perceptions completely subject to question. To be clear, this whole time I've been talking about anecdotal evidence. What the hell are you talking about?

My turn to call bullshit! Since the only concrete difference between the two events is 1) some asshole was trying to take a picture of her and 2) she's a woman, you'll have to prove that the similarities are superficial or that the comparison is unfounded. I'll just have to concede that you missed the point with flying colors; you practically make a caricature of the exact thing I was criticizing. If they're not with you ah shit he agrees with me don't wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, they're against you!

That's more or less the perception bias I was getting at with the example. If it's hard to take my experience being harassed as a cyclist seriously because I compared it to an identical experience that was also sexist, it smells to me like you've made such a strong distinction that you can't conceive of both experiences being equivalent at all. I would argue that this is a problem because you're literally saying that one crime is worse than another because of the perceived reason it was committed. When I'm riding my bicycle and a car starts driving right next to me or riding my ass, honks at me, and the passengers flip me off, the thought doesn't cross my mind that I'm so lucky that I wasn't a woman or that'd really be a bad experience. That's not to say that women don't have more problems. I'm just arguing for keeping biases in mind. If you took my language as inflammatory, that's just your perception. I called it acts of dickery because it's general enough to cover both actual crimes an just general indecencies, and it sounds kind of funny. If that strikes you as bullshit, take it how you'd like.

On the topic of spoilers, personally I've found that more often than not, books ruin the film for me, not vice versa. The Princess Bride, as a novel, puts everything in such a different light that it'd be impossible to read the book and then enjoy the film the same way, and, at least for me, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was so much more complex and interesting as a book that I kept getting distracted by how much simply didn't happen that I had trouble just enjoying the plot for itself. It's not the same as a spoiler exactly, but it is a sort of knowledge and context that makes the experience less enjoyable than if I didn't know it before. Damn, if I just go with that definition, the idea of spoilers just opens up into new crazy possibilities. If you're an animal rights activist, does the fact that chim-chim was punched on set "spoil" Speed Racer for you? Is that the same thing, and if not, what's the difference?

Yeah that was why I restarted the second time. It didn't really occur to me before that point that you weren't supposed to be able to do scenes over easily, but once it occurred to me I wanted to replicate what decisions I made the first time.

I think you'll have to qualify your false equivalency argument or I'll have to dismiss it as a distinction without difference. The point I made is that when people do bad things, it's difficult to establish whether they would have done the same thing whether it was a woman or not. I'm saying that sexism is real, it does affect the way people express their acts of dickery, and it might cause acts of dickery in itself, and it probably causes acts of dickery to be disproportionately expressed agains one group or the other. I will agree that sexism is a major part of your problems, I will raise an eyebrow if you claim that sexism is the root cause of your problems. Speaking more generally, if someone feels wronged, the burden doesn't rest on her to prove that she's been wronged. That's unfair. If you blame something or someone else for you feeling wronged, the burden of proof rests on yourself.

Thought I would share this little bit about how I played TWD at first. In episode 2, after some opening scenes, there's an establishing shot under opening credits where the main cast is shown living in their new base. There's a bit of a lengthy scene where the hunting party returns to the base amid lots of excitement. There's long dialogue scenes and a climactic finish before you're free to just walk around the base. Long story short, there's a really long scene opening this section. Anyway, following that scene you're given a bunch of food to distribute to the camp. I took the food and gave it to who I thought was appropriate. Then I changed my mind. So I restarted. Establishing shot. Dramatic entrance. Fuss. Excitement. Lots of dialogue. A long time later, I'm back where I was, and I give people food again. I handed out the food in a different order, but it didn't really feel right this time. At this point I realized that the game wasn't made to be able to do do-overs. So I started over to repeat my original choice. I went through the whole ordeal, every last bit of dialogue, and finally did the exact same thing I did when I played it the first time. Anyway, that's definitely the way you shouldn't play TWD, but I thought it was interesting that that experience happened. It wasn't a pleasant experience, but I'm not sure if it's the game's fault for not accommodating do-overs, or my fault for trying to do-over anyway, or the game's fault for not communicating that do-overs don't work, or my fault for voluntarily putting myself through it all a third time even after I knew it'd be such a pain. In the end I'm glad I started over the second time, because it felt more authentic to go with my original choice.

I couldn't decide whether to put this here or in the gun control thread, but here it is: Tennessee takes away gun permit from guy who threatened to kill anyone who tried to take away his guns

I'll say yes, you're probably right, because I don't know. Like I said, I get harassed for being a cyclist too, so to a certain extent it's not so much bros be sexist and a little more some people are assholes. Maybe predominately dudes, cause whenever I get harassed by drivers it's usually a guy driving. But purely based on two anecdotes about riding on bicycles, we can say that sometimes when dudes are assholes they're sexist. So yeah, for now the most I'll commit to is sure, maybe. I think more to the point of swapping pronoun genders in news stories, you can see somewhat of a bias of what is acceptable. Take the example given in the article: "Try it with pop stars and imagine a world where a teenaged girl could, without being pilloried, comfortably talk about her sexuality using the same language as 18-year-old One Direction singer Harry Styles." It's a good point, a certain segment of media would probably lash out at her. But for the sake of mixing up nouns (because there's not enough pronouns), try it with writers and imagine a world where a young man could, without being pilloried, comfortably talk about being sexually harassed using the same language as a Jezebel writer. The point in both cases isn't that teenage girls aren't sexually active and that men don't get sexually harassed, but there is a media bias, albeit from different sides of the media, on which of these is okay to talk about and how. I think simply ending the discussion with saying one side or the other has it worse period doesn't really help anyone.

Also this: The Waves by Villagers

I did a search and it wasn't apparently posted, but here's Kishi Bashi's Bright Whites

To be fair, it's a key for a free-to-play. The Ship costs $20 on steam ffs.