Welcome back from GenCon Chris. :(
It is interesting that you keep referring to yourself as being outside the 'gaming community'
Not at all. The "they" in the quotation you cited wasn't "the gaming community". It was "the people who make death threats".
To rephrase it in a way that's clearer:
Sissyl said, "Specifically, these people do NOT see themselves as part of the group you're talking about."
I replied, "By group, you mean that the people who make death threats don't consider themselves part of the gaming community? Of course the people who make death threats consider themselves part of the gaming community."
At no point was I referring to the gaming community as "they", or as the other. "They" was people who make death threats, and I definitely don't consider myself a part of that group.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here, and assume that you just weren't following the conversation very closely and didn't care enough to make sure you understood it before attacking me over pronoun choice, instead of the alternative (that you deliberately quoted me out-of-context in the hopes that I would forget what I had said two pages ago, and suddenly admit to considering myself superior to all other gamers).
You play games, you talk about them on the Internet, often to the tune of dozens and dozens of posts in single thread about them.
You are a member of the gaming community, Scott.
I absolutely am. That's the whole reason I'm talking about this. If I wasn't part of the gaming community, I probably wouldn't care.
Come on, you didn't seriously think that would work, did you? You must have better counter-arguments than "You used the wrong pronoun here! You must secretly not consider yourself a gamer!"
Developers should take crowd control courses as the old saying goes the larger the mob the lower the IQ. I'd think people would realise expanding your sphere of influence also increases normal day to day risks as it's basic probability or in other words increasing your dice rolls for risk.
Whu... whut?
Where has he referred to himself like that?
Note the use of the word "they" every time he mentions the community, not "we".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Developers should take crowd control courses as the old saying goes the larger the mob the lower the IQ. I'd think people would realise expanding your sphere of influence also increases normal day to day risks as it's basic probability or in other words increasing your dice rolls for risk.
Developers should make games and take game making courses. And people should stop behaving like complete ass***s and pricks just because they can.
Whu... whut?
Where has he referred to himself like that?Note the use of the word "they" every time he mentions the community, not "we".
I literally have not used the word "they" in this thread even once to refer to the gaming community as a whole. You are welcome to click on my name, use a Ctrl-F to search for instances of the word "they", and check for yourself. I just did. Every use of the word "they" was referring to a subset of people that I am not a part of - except for one instance where I used "they" to refer to people who call for a more moderate tone but who get shouted down, which is definitely a subgroup that I consider myself a part of but which I chose to use "they" in reference to so as to make it clear that I don't feel personally persecuted.
Care to retract? Even better, care to quote for me even one time in this thread where I've used the word "they" to refer to the gaming community as a whole? Or is impugning my character by painting me as elitist with half-assed lies like this important to you?
Again, I want you to seriously consider if this is the way you want to argue. Is the primary thrust of your counter-argument (from two of you, now!) going to be that I shouldn't be listened to because you're convinced that I secretly don't consider myself a gamer?
I literally have not used the word "they" in this thread even once to refer to the gaming community as a whole. You are welcome to click on my name, use a Ctrl-F to search for instances of the word "they", and check for yourself. I just did. Every use of the word "they" was referring to a subset of people that I am not a part of - except for one instance where I used "they" to refer to people who call for a more moderate tone but who get shouted down, which is definitely a subgroup that I consider myself a part of but which I chose to use "they" in reference to so as to make it clear that I don't feel personally persecuted.
This particular one is my mistake. I had to go back to page 2 to find it, and had skipped over it the first time, so I assumed the post quoting it was in the correct context.
Nevertheless, you've done it before, as I remember.
Care to retract? Or is impugning my character by painting me as elitist with half-assed attacks like this important to you?
Calm yourself, unless you're trying to illustrate exactly what DeathQuaker was talking about originally (taking everything as an attack on your character).
It's not necessarily elitism to consider yourself outside of a community you find distasteful, even if you like similar things.
While you are technically part of the gaming community, you give the impression that you do not and do not WISH TO be lumped in with the core gaming community. Which is understandable, since a lot of "hardcore" gamers are morons.
Again, I want you to seriously consider if this is the way you want to argue. Is the primary thrust of your counter-argument (from two of you, now!) going to be that I shouldn't be listened to because you're convinced that I secretly don't consider myself a gamer?
Nobody said you shouldn't be listened to, as far as I remember. Just an observation that you did not seem to consider yourself a part of the community you are commenting on, despite sharing the same interests.
Based on an out of context post in this case, yes, but still holds true over other encounters I've had with you.
Nevertheless, you've done it before, as I remember.
Yeah. Go hunt that one down. I'm sure you'll find it to be of critical importance to proving that a more moderate tone isn't warranted.
Calm yourself, unless you're trying to illustrate exactly what DeathQuaker was talking about originally (taking everything as an attack on your character).
I don't think it's a stretch to consider, "Scott doesn't even think of himself as part of the gaming community so therefore the things he is saying are superior, highly generalised and mostly unsubstantiated," to be an attack on my character. Because that is literally exactly what it is. If you didn't want to attack my character, maybe don't accuse me of not considering myself part of a group I very clearly consider myself a part of. I realize that Werthead made that claim, but you sure as hell don't have to back him up on it. Let him deal with his mistake.
While you are technically part of the gaming community, you give the impression that you do not and do not WISH TO be lumped in with the core gaming community. Which is understandable, since a lot of "hardcore" gamers are morons.
That doesn't mean I'm not a part of it. It's saddening that being part of the gaming community means being associated with a number of uglier elements of that community (and there are a lot of them), but I also know that I am not 100% clean of contributing to that myself, and therefore I have absolutely no claim to consider the gaming community "beneath" me.
Nobody said you shouldn't be listened to, as far as I remember. Just an observation that you did not seem to consider yourself a part of the community you are commenting on, despite sharing the same interests.
An observation based on...what? Someone being unable to understand what a pronoun refers to? The fact that I'm a fairly prolific poster on an internet forum about gaming?
But if you still have a lurking suspicion that I don't consider myself a gamer despite all evidence to the contrary and my telling you that I consider myself a part of the gaming community, I really have nothing left to offer. If that's the case, you are already so far past the point of being reasoned with that there is no hope.
Based on an out of context post in this case, yes, but still holds true over other encounters I've had with you.
Ask yourself this: Even if it were true, why would it be important? Even if I actively considered myself to not be a gamer, why would it matter? Would it change the validity of the things I have said? Things that, by all rights, ought to stand on their own? If it becomes important to you to find out exactly what groups I consider myself a part of, you have stepped beyond the content of the discussion into an examination of the personal traits of the people you are arguing with.
So, my advice to you? Drop this. If you want to end another thread where we disagree by turning it into a thread about me instead of about the thread's topic because you can't see a way to make a compelling argument for your own position, you're sure as hell on the right track.
Or don't, and continue to make this about me.
It's not important.
Which is why it's so baffling that you've bristled up and gone onto the defensive so much so quickly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And maybe that "demographic", where I'm from, tends to complain every time they don't get their own way that they're being discriminated against. The reality is that they're discriminated against for being dirtbags and criminals, not for being a certain "demographic". Maybe discriminating against dirtbags and criminals, regardless of "demographic", isn't all that unreasonable.
thejeff answered this for me already, but I think I can stand to reiterate while I'm here.
How do you tell which ones are the dirtbags and criminals on sight?
Is it the hoodies?
Is it their vehicle of choice? Is it the brands that they might wear, the music they listen to, or the fact that they strut about, not knowing 'their place', that marks them as such?
Maybe my vantage point comes of being subject to undue scrutiny for being the 'wrong sort of person' in the 'wrong part of town'. Maybe my vanage point comes of having little-to-no positive interaction with the law, regardless of circumstance. Maybe if some had the courtesy to address me as 'sir' without spitting the word like an epithet, or 'Mister *Lastname*' instead of boy when I am as likely to be as old as the badge-wearing jackass who didn't get to be a hall monitor in middle school and grew up with a hard-on for authority. And maybe if, when being stopped for making a turn to double-back due to a construction detour being poorly marked, I was taken at face value instead of the cop calling for a thrice-bedamned CANINE UNIT to search my car for supposed possible narcotics, and for my hassle issued a citation for a tail-light and an insurance card that was THREE DAYS OUT, I was instead given a warning, instead of having to waste time and court fees addressing that excrement, I would have a higher opinion of the profession. What I deal with instead would be interactions that all would fail the main rules of this very board, so I will not repeat them as exlicitly as I would.
Just to be clear, I AM NOT saying that it's okay to assume everyone of a certain demographic is a dirtbag and/or criminal. I'm saying that if an individual is indeed a dirtbag or criminal, they should expect to be treated as such, regardless of "demographic", and have no room to complain about discrimination.
I'm just going to reiterate, here.
How do you tell which ones are the dirtbags and criminals on sight?
Look, at the end of the day cops are just people like you and me. Expecting them to be paragons of virtue and above reproach is unreasonable. They put up with more crap than most folks will ever have to deal with, and in return they get treated worse than the scum they try to bring down. In many communities they are seen as the enemy and the criminals viewed as heroes. How well would you handle that situation? It's easy to sit up there on your moral high horse when you've never walked a day in their shoes.
In my experience, a little "yes, sir/no, sir" goes a long way. Treat an officer with some dignity and respect, as an ally and not an adversary, and you'll see a big difference.
I seem to recall that people have no problems expecting such paragons of virtue to be found amongst public celebrities and entertainers, when their job is to sing/perform/act/whatever they actually do for a living, rather than serving as Little Billy or Sally's Role Models.
Just like celebrities, law enforcement officers CHOOSE the profession. They self-select for the profession. Don't want to be held to the standard? Become the private contractor for the Prison-Industrial Complex one will inevitably will seek to join for the combined lucrativeness and to get one's micro-peen erect by verbally abusing the addicted, the societal rejects, and those whom the System has failed alongside the genuine criminals. Stop standing up for the Anthony Bolognas and Johnny Cardonas and John Pikes and Sean McAleaveys. Don't hide behind the oft-cited Thin Blue Line, claiming that the Oscar Grants and Sean Bells of the world are 'flukes', when there is a demonstrated culture of disregard, disrespect, and disingenuous disservice being perpetrated by a profession that is supposed to be, first and foremost, public servants, not paid provocateurs and armed antagonists.
It's not important.
Then why did Werthead bother bringing it up? And, more importantly, why did you choose to defend him?
I'm looking for an, "All right, it's dropped," from you.
If your speaking to large numbers of people then yes you do unless your ok with causing people to turn & riot?
It's not important.Then why did Werthead bother bringing it up?
Dunno, ask him.
And, more importantly, why did you choose to defend him?
"Agreeing with his general impression of you" =/= "Defeending him".
I'm looking for an, "All right, it's dropped," from you.
Tell me when you find it.
thejeff answered this for me already, but I think I can stand to reiterate while I'm here.
How do you tell which ones are the dirtbags and criminals on sight?
Is it the hoodies?
Is it their vehicle of choice? Is it the brands that they might wear, the music they listen to, or the fact that they strut about, not knowing 'their place', that marks them as such?
I'm just going to reiterate, here.
How do you tell which ones are the dirtbags and criminals on sight?
Nice try.
Not once did I advocate for discrimination based on sight. I'm talking about discrimination based on actions. If I catch someone robbing my store, and I call the cops instead of "letting it slide", I get a little testy when I'm accused of being racist. If I see someone constantly checking to see see if I'm watching, trying to hide their face, looking like they're up to something, it's not racism that motivates me to give them extra attention. If someone owes some money based on a signed agreement regarding services rendered, and they expect me to forgive the debt "just because", I'm not racist when I expect them to pay up.
Yet, where I'm from, "did not get own way" always equates to "victim of racism". Maybe my experiences are a little different from yours, and no less valid. I'm not the one demonizing an entire group based on the actions of a few.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how a discussion about inappropriate behavior has devolved into ad hominem attacks. It's almost reassuring in a way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how a discussion about inappropriate behavior has devolved into ad hominem attacks. It's almost reassuring in a way.
"Ahh, now that's the internet I know and love to hate!"
It's no coincidence, Jeff, those demographics just have a higher incidence of dirtbaginess and criminality. You've probably never even heard of Venn Diagrams! :P
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here,
Thank you, oh wondrous and superior master, for your magnamnity.
and assume that you just weren't following the conversation very closely and didn't care enough to make sure you understood it before attacking me over pronoun choice, instead of the alternative (that you deliberately quoted me out-of-context in the hopes that I would forget what I had said two pages ago, and suddenly admit to considering myself superior to all other gamers).
Just as you are - desperately, so desperately, hoping that your behaviour in other threads (the XB1 one, the ME3 thread and many others) where you spam them to overfilling with condescending comments about how the gaming community is a laughing stock, no-one takes it seriously and all criticism of games should be ignored, is forgotten?
Which is why it's so baffling that you've bristled up and gone onto the defensive so much so quickly.
Scott is one of these people who will never accept they are wrong and will consistently spam threads by saying the same thing repeatedly even when his arguments have been dismantled in depth. When his argument is so ridiculously inane to start with, a certain degree of over-defensiveness is to be expected.
As you can see here:
Come on, you didn't seriously think that would work, did you?
Scott is not interested in having a debate. He is only interested in scoring points, having people only listen to his opinions and 'winning the thread'. It is a dishonest discussion technique.
Because obviously only dirtbags and criminals would have problems with cops and cops only harass dirtbags and criminals. Anyone who complains about the cops must be a dirtbag or a criminal, right?
It's only an odd coincidence that it's more common among people of a certain demographic.
Since you obviously missed it the first time,
Just to be clear, I AM NOT saying that it's okay to assume everyone of a certain demographic is a dirtbag and/or criminal. I'm saying that if an individual is indeed a dirtbag or criminal, they should expect to be treated as such, regardless of "demographic", and have no room to complain about discrimination.
In the land of vagueries, technicalities are king.
Actually, I will fully apologise at this juncture for the tone of my former post. I don't normally get riled up by such things and in this instance overreacted. My apologies to Scott and the board.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On topic, Jimquisition has a somewhat satisfying rant about this:
The thing is rants don't actually solve any problem & the fact context for 'threats' or just basic misunderstandings with people who aren't fluent english speakers. I'm sure all here know how dark humor can be lost in translation on internet too. If it's that important to her show names of people who sent her threats with context of conversation then problem is solved police get search warrants etcetera. I say context again because without context everything you ever say can make you anything when taken from whole conversation.
I've done more than my share of thread-jacking in this topic, for which I apologize.
I had a reply, that was quite probably made of pure poison and venom and bitterness and overall the sum of all my negative experiences, wrapped up in less-than-stellar prose, but thejeff covered things more calmly and rationally than I would have, so thank you for that.
My point is not to sling labels, as that does naught but incite ire and end dialog - I wanted to point out a viewpoint that came across as highly incongruous with my experiences, and why I felt it relevant to the point of the topic - that people can be horribly disgusting. I know well enough of the stereotypes - I'm stuck sitting through them at work because someone has put DirectTV on Fox News and actually PARENTAL LOCKED any non-right-wing sources on the break room box, and I get to be reminded exactly what is thought of my ethnicity, complete with wide brushes and feathers to go with the adhesive of generalization. I'm pretty sure, even with the oversampling done for any number of reasons, there's plenty of 'criminals and dirtbags' to allow any who so chose to enjoy their confirmation bias - however, this does not mean that said beliefs get to go unchallenged. Especially when that brush slaps me in the face, and offense is taken when I apply that brush right back.
So I'm going to conclude with the subject of this thread, and say that in some cases, it's a chicken and egg problem. With a side order of bacon.
Because pigs. And bags of dirt. And something about wrestling with pigs, getting dirty, and the pig enjoying it. Followed by something hammy.
Donut read further into this than pure punnery. No hatin', no perpertratin', I'm out.
EDIT: That said, I would not mind seeing more of these tools getting tooled like this tool. I say that as someone who has made not-entirely-dissimilar statements out of ire and exaggeration, but come to terms with my own jerkery without requiring law enforcement intervention...and because I didn't go and express those feelings at the cause directly. Seriously, that's just unwise.
If you're only talking about actual criminals caught in the act, as it now seems, why did you even post about "criminals and dirtbags" in response toMaybe some of this so-called disrepect for police officers comes from a demographic that has been long-subject to things like...?
If the police "in many communities are seen as the enemy and the criminals viewed as heroes", is that just because the communities are full of "criminals and dirtbags"? Is it reasonable to think you're saying something about that demographic, not just the criminal minority?
How do you respond to the long standing complaints from respectable leaders in the black community? Are they all "criminals and dirtbags", because otherwise they'd be properly respectful of the police and treat them as heroes?
A simple disclaimer doesn't change the basic argument you made.
I'm saying that actual criminals and dirtbags accuse cops of targeting them based on their demographic even when they are being targeted because of their guilt. I'm saying that criminals try to play the victim. If the arresting cop is white, he's a racist. If the arresting cop is black, he's an "Uncle Tom". They don't accept responsibilty for their own actions.
In my experience, all cops are not jackbooted, fascist, racist thugs out to trample all over our civil rights. Some of them are. It's no more acceptable to assume all cops are dirtbags because of the actions of a few than it is to assume all folks of a certain race are dirtbags based on the actions of a few.
I'm a pretty reasonable and open-minded person. I've actually been running all of this by my minority friend/co-worker just to make sure I'm not being insensitive to realities of which I'm unaware. (Though you may not want to take his word for it either. He's been accused of being an "Uncle Tom" on plenty of occasions). But if it makes you feel better to assume I'm racist, go right ahead.
On topic, Jimquisition has a somewhat satisfying rant about this:
While I'm not normally a fan of this flavor of commentary, at least it looks like the sentiment is catching on, and goes beyond chiding the gaming community for death threats to chiding the gaming community for trash-talking developers in general. That's a step forward, for certain.
Agreed. Though lately I've grown to like his commentary on some things.
Though mentioning Phil Fish a week or so after he himself dumped on him (after which he "apologized" with a video so dripping with sarcasm he probably drowned a few cats) kinda hurts his point somewhat.
Agreed. Though lately I've grown to like his commentary on some things.
Though mentioning Phil Fish a week or so after he himself dumped on him (after which he "apologized" with a video so dripping with sarcasm he probably drowned a few cats) kinda hurts his point somewhat.
Yeah, I think his opinions are less the result of solid reasoning and more the result of a desire to produce content that gamers find both highly relevant, and with a strength of opinion equal to their own. There are occasional gems, but overall it's in the same ballpark as a Bill O'Reilly sort of character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem I have with the accusation or assumption of anyone as racist is that there's a hefty combination of social and cultural baggage that goes with the term. A substantial amount of what gets deemed racism is more racial insensitivity, and let's face it, everyone does that, regardless of ethnicity or upbringing. Speaking solely for myself, I tend to see those things as more 'Dude, not cool' moments than anything actively and actively malicious and intentional - making fun of the friend who can't get a cab, or being blamed for why a group of friends get pulled over in a car, or being expected to have calves the size of cantaloupes and amazing heat tolerance.
Racism kicks in when it becomes not a general observation of the other, but grounds for treatment best described as bearing or generating antipathy and malevolence towards the Other. In my experience, it's the sort of thing that gets whole ethnicities, subcultures, and socio-economic brackets designated at 'THOSE people'. "THOSE people can't be trusted, they're all money-grubbing backstabbers." "THOSE people can't be trusted, they're as likely to stab you and steal your wallet as look at you." "THOSE people aren't worth the cost of the bullet to put down one of their kind, filthy welfare-sucking trash living off the dole."
Certain professions mandate the explicit avoidance of that mindset - once compromised, one cannot be expected to reasonably perform the expected duties of their office, and should be immediately directed into another line of work. Their views should not be justified as a part of the work experience, or as an acceptable part of the profession.
Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. Treating people like 'perps' rather than 'suspects' drives the already-substantial wedge that exists between the law and its citizenry deeper, and fosters the views that such positions exist purely for the unsavory glee of power-tripping pissants ingratiating themselves to an Old Boy's Club and running roughshod over those they are sworn to 'Serve and Protect'.
And that includes the multichromatic scum who they are called upon to bring in. It does not exclude scum that is a different shade of human from them. Frequently, when there are repetitive examples of one segment of society demonstrating these tendencies more often than in another group, phrases and descriptors become short-hand, euphemism, code for describing groups. People are allowed, hell, they are genuinely entitled to their experiences and the conclusions they form from them, but it should not inform the way they perform their job outside of an awareness of differences, not as a vector for voicing and enforcing those views. ESPECIALLY not against members of the community that are besmirched by said accrued and acquired views.
Well, you do live in Texas... :P
But, seriously, my sympathies. I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the U.S. where such things are not common.
Being in the military, I've noticed that folks tend to assume their particular corner of the world is "the norm", because they never experience anything else. For example, it wasn't until my most recent visit home that I realized just how rude New Yorkers are comparatively. And I'm not just talking about the city (which I've only visited once, thankfully), it's the whole state! Growing up, I just assumed that was normal. Now, I'm not sure I'll ever want to move back.
It creates an interesting and sometimes tense dynamic with the newbies when they need to be divested of their homegrown assumptions about "the way the world is".
I'm sure all here know how dark humor can be lost in translation on internet too.
There is absolutely no context whatsoever that makes threats against someone or their family OK.
If it's that important to her show names of people who sent her threats with context of conversation then problem is solved police get search warrants etcetera.
If it's that important to her...
Seriously? Her kids were f*#!ing threatened!
There is absolutely no context whatsoever that makes threats against someone or their family OK.
Exactly.
Come on, "dark humor"? What other sorts of mental gymnastics are we going to use to help justify how we treat people?
|
|
There is absolutely no context whatsoever that makes threats against someone or their family OK.Exactly.
Come on, "dark humor"? What other sorts of mental gymnastics are we going to use to help justify how we treat people?
All of them, as long as we don't have to admit that we are wrong or that we lack any sort of empathy.
Insurance and paperwork were in order, and there was no cause for my being stopped, and the expletive-worthy individual addressed me as 'boy'... yet another case of DWB.
-Dear God, you are a better man than me, I would have gotten arrested if I were you...I teach English in China, and one thing I always tell advanced students is NEVER say "Hey Boy" to a black man...They watch hiphop music videos and don't understand you just don't call black men boy unless you want to have small holes punched in you.
Well, you do live in Texas... :P
To both my eternal mirth and chagrin. I'm still trying to figure out an affordable, viable escape route that doesn't involve unspeakable contracts and/or human trafficking.
But, seriously, my sympathies. I can assure you that there are plenty of places in the U.S. where such things are not common.
True. I wish my home state were one of them (though it's not as bad there in my hometown of Baltimore, but Maryland is not above a good sized chunk of ethnic and socioeconomic tension either, especially for its proximity to DC).
Being in the military, I've noticed that folks tend to assume their particular corner of the world is "the norm", because they never experience anything else. For example, it wasn't until my most recent visit home that I realized just how rude New Yorkers are comparatively. And I'm not just talking about the city (which I've only visited once, thankfully), it's the whole state! Growing up, I just assumed that was normal. Now, I'm not sure I'll ever want to move back.
Pardon the curiosity, but which branch? My folks were both Air Force, which perhaps skews my vantage point - I grew up all over Western Europe, during my formative years, which gives me a very warped outlook on many relationship dynamics, ranging across race, gender, and nationality. As most tend to deduce from my manner of posting and my avowed interests, I tend to not exactly fit in with the preconceived notions that go with being from Baltimore, including the ethnic component. In fact, the vast majority of my views on many things didn't become what they were until I was back in the States, and got to see them up close and personally - otherwise, they'd been literally academic, as I'd read about such matters, but for the most part did not encounter them personally. For example, I don't find New Yorkers rude - I find the NYC lifestyle hasty and restless, after living with an uncle in Harlem, and he was something of a hstling Jazz musician, which you would think was a bit more laid back than the typical job in the city. Nope, everyone, top down, lives hard and fast, or so my experience with the city indicated.
Conversely, when I found out we were moving to Texas, I didn't have the visual of it being trapped back in the frontier days, with no one owning a car and everyone on horses and generally uncivilized. I expected something less TV show 'Dallas', and more...well, what I remembered from younger days and going to Six Flags with my mom when we were stationed at Tinker AFB, OK, during the 80s. And, aside from the march of time, it was that, on the physical and environmental level. It wasn't until I was out of school and on my own that I started to see more of the implemented societal and cultural conflicts...though I was aware of a number of them even before graduation, as my posts in the George Zimmerman verdict thread can attest.
It creates an interesting and sometimes tense dynamic with the newbies when they need to be divested of their homegrown assumptions about "the way the world is".
I found it more the inverse personally - though in retrospect, I suppose I did see a lot of people undergo culture shock in Spain, Italy, Germany, et. al - it just never occurred to me that there WAS a norm until I was stateside, again, and saw how those who had never left their homeland lived.
Theres dark humor for everything it's sorta a motto for comedy no sacred cows. I'm surprised it seems that without any evidence of entire conversation she's had just because a 'threat' was supposedly made, again if we're calling for witch hunts with no context given in as evidence enjoy when it's turned on you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theres dark humor for everything it's sorta a motto for comedy no sacred cows. I'm surprised it seems that without any evidence of entire conversation she's had just because a 'threat' was supposedly made, again if we're calling for witch hunts with no context given in as evidence enjoy when it's turned on you.
Exactly what brand of comedy is it, Neko Witch, when someone tells you they're going to hunt down your children and kill them?
You don't appear to actually understand what dark humor is.
Please stop. Recognize that what you are doing is defending an individual and a culture that makes life awful for people, with absolutely no redeeming value. Stop giving them someone to point to and say, "He supports me!"
|
|
Theres dark humor for everything it's sorta a motto for comedy no sacred cows. I'm surprised it seems that without any evidence of entire conversation she's had just because a 'threat' was supposedly made, again if we're calling for witch hunts with no context given in as evidence enjoy when it's turned on you.
What Scott said. Also, start using punctuation.
A good example of death humor I can think of is by Bill Hicks in a routine of his he jokes about himself being assassinated. I'm glad to know you'd accept things on hearsay as a judge without any form of context given. Civilians don't have FISA court privaledges so evidence gathering is prosecution side which means screenshots, intent, & then litigation for restraining orders etcetera.
The gathering of her evidence against someone who she thinks is a credible threat is a simple process of saving conversations with person then giving to her lawyer or EA's lawyers to prosecute.
I sincerely hope that people who sent death threats are all caught and put in jail for this.I couldn't agree more. This kind of threat should always be followed up, and punished to the maximum extent of the law.
No. Prison should be reserved only for those who cannot function in society and/or deserve the death penalty, but are not receiving the death penalty.
This kind of offense deserves no more than a fine. Anyone who thinks simple words deserve prison time has zero concept of what life in prison is like or what life after prison is like.
A good example of death humor I can think of is by Bill Hicks in a routine of his he jokes about himself being assassinated.
I don't even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good example of death humor I can think of is by Bill Hicks in a routine of his he jokes about himself being assassinated. I'm glad to know you'd accept things on hearsay as a judge without any form of context given. Civilians don't have FISA court privaledges so evidence gathering is prosecution side which means screenshots, intent, & then litigation for restraining orders etcetera.
The gathering of her evidence against someone who she thinks is a credible threat is a simple process of saving conversations with person then giving to her lawyer or EA's lawyers to prosecute.
Can you think of any differences between Bill Hicks, a professional comedian, who is on a stage where people have paid money to come and see him perform, making a joke about harm coming to himself... and the people who made anonymous death threats against the woman in the OP?