SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I fail to see how the US constitution gives straight people the right to marry, much less gay people.

I'm glad we have legalized gay marriage, but we sure picked a stupid way to get there.

#2 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -
Loading Video...

An enjoyable song, but sadly not the vocabulary builder that I was hoping it to be.

Anyhow, I'm only bothered when writers use needlessly obscure synonyms. If there is a concept or a thought that can be better conveyed with a somewhat more uncommon word, go for it. I'd rather read someone write about "platitudes" rather than "overused and now cliche encouraging statements." If someone feels the need to use "masticate" when they could just say "chew," I can see where that could come off as pretentious, especially on a regular basis.

But if you don't know what a word means these days, the answer is just a few clicks away. There should be no shame in ignorance, and for everyone who knows the meaning of a word now, that once wasn't the case.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@thatpinguino said:

@spaceinsomniac: But no one is protesting Apple that I know of. There isn't a group at work here other than a corporation making a bad decision about what the public wants. You can protest the decision and call it a terrible direction without bringing free speech politics into this. This decision is shortsighted for a lot of reasons, but imposing on fundamental American rights isn't one of them.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, arguing that censorship = imposing on fundamental American rights. Although government censorship certainly can do that, of course. I would not argue "apple has no right to do this!," but I would say what they have done is an example of censorship.

I believe free speech and censorship are often separate issues, with notable exceptions, most of which revolve around the government. A good example would be a college taking government money, and then attempting to enforce "speech codes" to limit what is allowed to be discussed, seen, or heard. Here's a good example of something like that: https://www.thefire.org/my-college-had-a-problem-with-a-funny-shirt/

#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@thatpinguino said:
@carryboy said:
@thatpinguino said:
@marokai said:

But hey this totally isn't censorship right you guys only governments can do that huh.

This isn't censorship, its just a really shitty, shortsighted, ill-considered corporate policy that satisfies the desires of no one.

Definition:

  1. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

This isn't suppression of speech, it is refusing to stock certain items on digital shelves. If Barnes and Nobel decided not to carry the Twilight books it wouldn't be censoring Twilight because the book can still be sold elsewhere. It would be a shitty business decisions that help no one, but it still wouldn't be censorship. iOS deciding not to sell your game is much more debilitating than one book store freezing you out, but there are still other platforms to sell your game on. Or if a storefront won't have you, you could sell from your own website. Hell you can sell your game out of the back of a truck if you want. If you broaden censorship to include market places pulling an item off shelves, then a whole lot of stuff suddenly becomes censorship.

I believe there is a large difference between not stocking a product because you don't want to, and removing a product due to current events. For an example, I remember 9/11, and how some store owners removed products they previously had no issue with carrying. Suddenly, Rage Against the Machine t-shirts were no longer appropriate. That wasn't a store owner deciding that they wouldn't sell those shirts in the first place, it was a knee-jerk reaction that succeeded because someone probably complained and successfully imposed their personal, political or moral values on everyone else.

I felt that was censorship then, and I feel that this is censorship now.

If Barnes and Nobel decided not to carry the Twilight books because their owner thought they were shitty books? That's not censorship. If Barnes and Nobel stopped selling the Twilight books because religious groups protested, and claimed that the occult-filled content of the Twilight books would morally damage the fabric of society? Yeah, I'd call that censorship.

#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@marokai said:

But hey this totally isn't censorship right you guys only governments can do that huh.

This isn't censorship, its just a really shitty, shortsighted, ill-considered corporate policy that satisfies the desires of no one.

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

Trying to redefine the definition of the word doesn't make it true. But we can agree that Apple's actions are shitty, shortsighted, and ill-considered.

#6 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -
#7 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

Seriously, PR is not that hard. I know Luke doesn't work in PR, but if he's this bad at PR, he should never have been allowed anywhere near an interview.

It's really strange to see someone advocate for more barriers between press and developers on Giant Bomb when one of the site's overriding principles is to erode those barriers.

What? I really enjoyed the interview, and I'd like to see a lot more of that sort of journalism, but I still understand the fact that a company needs to take an official stance regarding every controversial decision they make.

I don't see that as "advocating for more barriers between press and developers." I see that as "hey, look at all those people in your community pissed about this thing. If you're asked about this thing, this is our official stance on this thing." If your company isn't doing that, or someone can't stick to that message, then the only people doing interviews should be people who are prepared to handle those questions.

Perhaps "PR is not that hard" is a little too hyperbolic, though. I'll give you that. Talking to your customers without making them mad isn't always easy.

#8 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

We're back, and ready for round 2!

Loading Video...

I wanted to quote this for the new page, because it's a fairly new development that most people probably don't know about yet.

Also, what if Luke would have just said "Our season pass was 35 dollars, and many of our players bought and played our DLC for over 100 hours. This latest expansion includes more content than both of those add-ons, and is priced at only five dollars more, so we think we give our players an excellent value for their money." I know the UK numbers wouldn't sound as good, but it's hard to argue with "hundreds of hours of entertainment."

Seriously, PR is not that hard. I know Luke doesn't work in PR, but if he's this bad at PR, he should never have been allowed anywhere near an interview.

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

We're back, and ready for round 2!

Loading Video...

I don't EVER want to consume an "energy drink," and I shouldn't have content withheld from my purchase on the condition that I purchase something that I don't want and won't use. But that's just me personally, because many people don't even have a 7-11 anywhere close to where they live.

Thanks, Activision. There are a lot of video games coming out this year, and you've made it much easier for me to stop playing this one.

#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (4248 posts) -

@theht said:

Getting pissy about the emotes is pretty dumb, but man. What a delightfully terrible interview.

It's a really small addition, but it's featured in a game that is largely devoted to collecting cool things. If you've paid full price for the standard game and every bit of content as they've been released on day one, you shouldn't have some idiot telling their customers to buy everything again if they want a small piece of content.

The thing is, "it's only" is a two-way street. If it's ONLY a few emotes that don't really matter, than you should have no problem giving them away to everyone who has been paying for your game since the beginning.

It's not logical, other than hoping that hardcore fans will pay for everything again, just so their game is "compete." It's a load of bullshit. Hardcore fans might suck it up and buy the 40 dollar update anyway, but Bungie probably just pissed off a lot of fence-sitting fans who weren't sure if they were going to pickup the update or not. After this nonsense, I'm going to find it much easier to skip the DLC for a while, if I even bother getting it at all.