Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/30/14 12:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Mine, the way I explained it at first wasn't good. Plus other people already made the analogy.

fair enough..

For you. You're ignoring the issue, or at the least saying "there's no issue because I don't believe there's an issue". Money is being made off an organization with a name that's an ethnic slur. I don't understand why that's a hard issue to get people to grasp and then debate the merits of. I mean....

um, no, that isnt the case. i'm saying they need to work past their being offended by it if we're to have any progress, otherwise we'll be effectively encouraging the practice of putting those once in the gutters beneath everyone else when it came to rights, up on a pedestal above everyone else instead, which essentially is the same thing as digging a new gutter for those who were previously better off.

equality doesnt work in such a way that we can simply ban both parties from slurring each other, since the slurs themselves will always exist, and as long as they exist, there will be people willing to use them.

instead, we must work to change the very definition of these slurs, and take them as empowerments. i'm not saying everyone need do this right away, its their right and nature to have whatever initial reaction they're going to have. its just that, like any other rut we get in after experiencing something we feel strongly opposed to, such as when grieving at a relative's death, we must eventually get over it.

So then there's really nothing left to debate. Because what you're doing is saying "if I'm not offended, I don't know why anyone else would be either". The problem with that is you are not the arbiter of what the larger world does, or should, find offensive.

no, i'm not a sociopath. i can fully understand why people might be offended. perpetuating their offense taken however, is another story. being the arbiter of anything was never my intention, but since people misinterpret things all too often, its my responsibility to do what i can to enlighten them..

i think it to be anyone's right to take offense to anything for however long they need to, but nothing more. perpetuating that offense taken, or taking countermeasures based on that offense alone is usually unwarranted and can lead to severely detrimental backlash effects of their own in the future..

At 6/28/14 07:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. Which to be fair, is in part my fault, and I apologize. One of those cases where you think you wrote a very clear answer then look back and go "oh...that looks kind of bad on re-reading".

uh, how does anything look bad? are you speaking about your own statement, or mine? if yours, it just doesnt make any sense. if mine, i see no problem whatsoever.

How is that not an action taken against them? They are using a word the group considers a slur, they sell merchandise that promotes the organization and the slur, the people not only have to see the slur, but know that people paid money to see it. I mean, is it ok to you if someone forms a company and calls it "Chinks" and then sells, and promotes merchandise that they sell and profit from? Because if not, then I don't understand how you don't think doing the same for the term "Redskins" is ok.

because i've already made it clear that words and actions are distinct from one another. you're just begging the question. one cannot prove a point using said point as supporting evidence for itself.

and yes, i'm perfectly okay with that happening. i dont care if they called it "gringos", "chinks", "nigs", or "ockers", its all the same to me.

I don't see the team losing business really. I see them changing their name, still having everything else that the fan base enjoys about them, and life moving on. JUST LIKE IT HAS FOR EVERY OTHER TEAM THAT EVER CHANGED THEIR NAME FOR ANY REASON. This is not a unique situation in sports that a team has changed their name because some people might consider it offensive or insensitive. What IS unique is that in this case the public got up and got mad, the owner said "pssh, fuck you" and then a government office stepped in and struck it down, which I maintain was most likely done with some input from the NFL because as I keep repeating and will continue to do so, no franchise in that system operates in a vacuum. The licensing deals make it so, and the way the league is just basically structured makes it so.

unfortunately i agree. i would like nothing more than for these people to get the nfl shut down, but i know people are morons, and therefore will do whatever it takes to remain in business.

now, i still stand by my point from before. there is nothing inherently insidious about a slur nor should it bar someone from getting a trademark. i just want all sports to go to hell by any means necessary, even if it means letting a misconception strike the finishing blow.

but as i also stated, i agree it isnt likely that it will kill it in the end..

At 6/27/14 05:20 PM, Warforger wrote:

Oh really? I've must've missed all the arguments put forth by Pro-Choice people that it's ok to murder people.

thats because most people are under the misguided impression that human euthanasia is somehow not within moral boundaries.

suicidal people should have the choice of method on how to end their own lives, even if its by a serial killer. its their own life, it should be their own decision. their mind is still their own even if they're mentally ill.. but nobody else can seem to accept that.

At 6/27/14 07:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/27/14 04:04 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: how is murder of a fetus a thing?

A third party attacking the mother casuing the death of the fetus. That would be murder of the fetus, and that is judged on different grounds than abortion.

no, it wouldnt be. that is called a miscarriage, and is not always done with the intent to kill the fetus. yes, its different grounds, but a: it isnt a person yet, and thus cannot be murdered any more than one's own blood cells could be, and b: even if it were possible to be a person at that point in time, depending on whether the intent was there, it would be manslaughter or assault, not murder.

At 6/26/14 02:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/26/14 01:43 PM, Warforger wrote: Please, everyone agree's that murder is wrong, the debate is only over where life begins. THAT'S the issue, no one's arguing murder is ok, which seems to make up a big part of the pro-life argument.

I would separate the two even further, as murder of a fetus by an outside person is measured on very different grounds than those of abortion.

how is murder of a fetus a thing? abortion is abortion.

anyhow, i call bs on the theory that nobody thinks murder is okay. i personally am a consent based person, as long as a person is okay with having something done to them, its okay to do it to them.

irrelevant to things not capable of higher thought though.

At 6/26/14 11:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

People are free to say and do what they wish, regardless of the social morality or consequences. Businesses, as semi-public entities, must follow a stricter set of rules.

i'm not disputing that.. i'm just saying, its one thing if a business denies a service or product, or implies they will do so, to someone based on their race or any other thing people cant help but be. that would be crossing the line. its quite another thing to be insensitive. that is the right of anyone and everyone.. even a business.

is it a smart business decision? no, people avoid what offends them, i'm fully aware of that. but its still well within someone's rights to make poor business choices..

Sure they can be empowering. But they also are not. Don't blame the victim here for not reacting in the way you like. Blame the people who are intentionally trying to hurt the victims, or are too careless to think of the negative effects their characterizations may have.

i'm not suggesting we go BLAMING anyone, least of all the person who feels whatever way they do.. a natural reaction is a natural reaction, first impressions are huge. but its someone's choice whether to perpetuate the way they feel about something after having felt that way initially. just as its someone's choice whether to be stuck in any other rut.

it may be DIFFICULT for people to change the way they think, but its not impossible. of course, it is easier said than done. but i find that subjecting one's self to a different set of circumstances, appropriate for the moment, is the best way. that way, one has something to react naturally to, that subtly influences their other values.

and i wouldnt be using the word "victim" here.. that implies that a crime or other malicious activity was committed in the first place. it wasnt.

In a situation where a significant portion of native Americans in the country are living in poverty and are otherwise on the lower fringes of society, a widely popular and widely visible characterization of them as savages easily puts the idea in the mind of the Native Americans that society doesn't want them to move on and prefers them to remain in their downtrodden existsence. It's extremely difficult to succeed in a society when you honestly believe that the soceity doesn't believe you're on the same level.

actually, all you need is self-esteem and determination. i believe everyone thinks that i'm a useless slacker, but my messiah complex gets me through it. i just tell myself, "i may be a piece of crap at the moment, but society is infinitely worse off, so i have a moral obligation to fix what's wrong with this world". it makes me try harder to better myself, so i can better others.

the key is to never stop trying. sure it can be tough at times, but we always manage to pull through..

Can they buck this idea and ignore the offensive characterizations? Probably. Should they have to just to allow everyone else the slight convenience of not having to watch their word when it comes to business? No.

uh, i call bullshit on that.

And those who get murdered should just have tried harder to stay alive. Those who get robbed should have tried harder to not cave in to the threat of violence. So on and so forth.

murdered isnt relevant. robbed, not much more so. the thing you have to bear in mind is, this isnt something that has a point of no return. the guy who got murdered was mortally injured the moment the offender took his weapon to him. the guy who got robbed was doomed to lose his property the moment the robber left the premises.

these people however, have an indefinite amount of time to get over their ill feelings. i'm not faulting them for their initial reaction.

maybe the guy looked it up out of concern, not stopping to think that it would be smarter just to go out there and help the kid..

anime otaku here..

slayers, yugioh, pokemon season 1, digimon tamers, digimon frontier, megaman nt warrior.. those were my faves..

there were a few exceptions though, i enjoyed tmnt and king arthur and the knights of justice.. no idea why i liked the latter of the two when i hate sports, but thats another story..

slayers in particular however is the one thing that lasted throughout my life as my favorite show.. i do wish they'd make a season 6 and upwards... there's so much sequel room its ridiculous, we never see luna, chaotic blue, death fog, or a final battle against the lord of nightmares itself, even if the lord of nightmares is incapable of being defeated by black magic alone, or even its own power, the current most powerful spell in their universe..

then there's the remainder of shabranigdo's fragments, and the possibility zelgadis might become human again despite rezo's claim that such a thing was impossible in the plane of existence they lived in.. personally i believe rezo was lying in order to experiment on zel, so he could ressurect himself yet again in one last desperate attempt to cure his blindness..

but even if he were telling the truth, the claire bible only had infinite knowledge of the plane of existence it originated from in theory, and another world on the cosmic staff emanated from the sea of chaos, could yield the results zelgadis sought after..

anyway, now you know..

At 6/27/14 04:16 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Maybe because the original Transformers concept back in the 1980s didn't suck but the later incarnations and more recent movies did?

thats bullcrap.. everything up to cybertron was good. after cybertron ended, the franchise died with it..

At 6/27/14 02:23 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

that's backwards. "evil" is the absence of "good", not vice versa... the only thing necessary for "evil" to triumph, is for "good" men to do nothing..

sorry, i was thinking backwards myself.. you're right...

i need to stop impulse posting and proofread once in awhile...

At 6/27/14 09:40 AM, k6ka wrote: I use the analogy of "Cold does not exist, but heat does. Darkness does not exist, but light does. Therefore, evil does not exist, but good does."

There, I'm done. Do I get a cookie now?

that's backwards. "evil" is the absence of "good", not vice versa... the only thing necessary for "evil" to triumph, is for "good" men to do nothing..

At 6/27/14 12:09 AM, SCTE3 wrote: Sonic the Hedgehog '06

Just loved falling through a platform while running on it...

so you havent played that many glitchy games then?

At 6/25/14 09:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Actions have followed though, cash registers have been ringing since the moment the Redskins put out merchandise. You can't act like "it's just a word with no consequence" and guess what? If they change the name to something less offensive (which I'm sure they will while still keeping most of the branding intact) the cash registers will still ring.

cash registers ringing isnt an issue unless you're speaking of a store owned by native americans losing business because someone made a threat or jacked their stuff or whatever.. an action taken against the ethnic group by the one using the words is what i meant.

the team losing business on the other hand, is just how it goes based on societal views at present.. not a reason for anything..

At 6/26/14 02:35 PM, Feoric wrote:

You don't get to arbitrate who deserves to find certain things offensive.

so you think that we should stop people from mentioning chicken and black people in the same sentence? people find that offensive, and if we encourage that, we'll be encouraging reversal of the process.. and not in the way you think.. but rather, the black people being fully okayed to call white people "crackers" kind of way...

it doesnt cut it to simply discourage both groups from using their slurs. the slurs will always be there. i'm just saying, we dont need to let them hurt us. we can take them as empowerments, and use that to stop the process..

it wont make the slurs disappear, nothing will, but our culture's use of them, and their very definition, will change for the better.

i wasnt in any way saying "if you find it offensive, go fuck yourself"...

yes and no. evil exists as a concept, but not as a tangible thing. a person cannot be evil, only their actions can be evil. even then, as the taoists would say, good and evil are not absolute..

god is "good" to those who worship him, but can be considered nonexistent, or even "evil" to those who dont. especially since he supposedly created the devil, knowing everything he would do before he ever did it.. all for a test..

the devil, likewise, is considered "good" to some(but not all) of his followers.

i dont personally believe in either, but its all a point of view.. as is this topic.

At 6/26/14 10:08 PM, Knights wrote:

To be fair, the community here on NG is a billion times better than any other community on the internet. It's sort of a "worst community except for all the other ones" sort of situation.

um, the people in the adventure quest forums are more mature than the people here, but that could be attributed to the authoritarian rule there..

At 6/26/14 10:01 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Do certain forums all have posts that are similar in writing levels and styles?

I have been to forums with great grammar and I've been to ones that aren't that great.
But I wonder if people just start writing like each other or if certain standards are set.

I feel NG is one of those that has very good grammar and spelling and comes of as intelligent. Considering our age demographic this is very impressive. Good job, guys.

well, its better than runescape, but are you truly serious? i've only really noticed a few of us that seem to be engaging in intelligent conversation.. well, more than a few, but no more than half.. we're no standard internet forum here..

i would never pay that much for a hard copy. those break too easy. if it were an xbla download, its sometimes another story.. but those average at $15, and rarely hit 60.. only thing i got so far for that price was my fable trilogy pack..

there is no right or wrong when it comes to fiction. which is why lolicon is sometimes accepted though illegal..

anyhow, a movie about killing a real life tyrant, seriously, theyve made countless movies about taking out hitler.. why not make one of this guy? even if it has to be done postmortem, when he dies of natural causes as an old man, like castro soon will..

now, if they were to do it on schedule... who gives a damn.. its not like our presidents havent already gotten us into needless wars.. it'll give prospective trigger happy army recruits something to look forward to.. not that i approve of war of course, at least, in real life..

as a concept though, it's very appealing.. war is awesome, so long as it isnt real..

great, now i'm thinking of that movie "canadian bacon"..

lets just say, if you use motion sensor controls, lack full backward compatibility with ALL predecessors. or use babyish graphical stylization, you're gonna have a bad time.

therefore, all modern systems EXCEPT xbox 360 are crap. not sure about xbox one due to not having confirmed its rumor about secondhand user lockouts..

i sort of took a middle ground between bullying and not bullying.. i was a prankster...

at our montessori school one day when they were about to feed grunny, our class snake, i let the rat loose, freaking out all the girls.. then, i folded the pages of the dictionary in such a way that every time somebody opened the pages, it opened to "fuck". i also scratched graffiti into our pinmaps, farted so loudly it nearly blew out the second story windows, and rang a bell/whistle device i brought from home at recess, so that the first through third graders thought they needed to go inside.

as an added bonus on top of the laughs, i got the playground to myself..

those were good times...

At 6/25/14 05:50 PM, Light wrote: A study conducted by California State University, San Bernadino shows that about 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins's name offensive.

Hmm. All the more reason to change the name.

there's the fact that they find it offensive, and then there's the fact that they shouldnt because it in no way hurts them. if someone insulted someone else, there's no harm done. if someone threatened someone else, thats another story.

words are just words unless they imply actions will follow.

At 6/25/14 01:59 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

or ignorant, retarded, stupid, foolmongering fool. hard to tell.

ha, just realized the irony in my post.. "foolmonger"..

At 6/12/14 12:58 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

You bigoted, sexist, racist, hatemongering hater

or ignorant, retarded, stupid, foolmongering fool. hard to tell.

At 6/25/14 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Because trademark law explicitly bans marks that are racially disparaging in nature.

i'm not asking why it is what it is, i'm asking why people think it SHOULD be what it is.

When discussing with complex subjects, it's never a good idea to openly scream out that you have no idea how the subject works. If you don't understand the most basest point of a thing, you probably shouldn't be discussing it.

how do i not understand it? all i said was "i dont think MOST types of intelectual property law are necessarily a good thing."

its an opinion based comment, not fact based. a trademark is an intellectual property law based term. therefore, i know very well what it is.

i'm fully aware that people dont like to have their stuff ripped off and sold elsewhere under someone else's name, and all the other practices that some of these laws protect people from, i just dont think some of these solutions are the right ones.

people abusing the practice being my reason. too many works have gone down the tubes because their original author neglected them, and i dont believe anyone should be entitled to have their own work (or potential work) go to hell.

there is no "good" or "evil". they only exist as points of view.

adolf hitler started his massacre of the world's populace because he legitimately and religiously believed that it served an evolutionary purpose for humanity. he thought he was helping the world.

does attempting to help someone make a person evil?

this man, like hitler, and everyone else who does despicable things, was not thinking of the entire picture as it really was. therefore, how can we hold them responsible? instead of punishing them, we must help them achieve the proper point of view needed to see the world as it is. even if, like in this guy's case, they dont think of helping others at all.

hell, a punitive response is a flawed concept in itself, for it provides no lasting results.

therefore, i can just as easily say that all cops are evil because they arrest people. they think they help us, but they are only perpetuating our status quo, by turning surviving one-time offenders into career criminals with their overly harsh tactics..

say you were a hobo on the street, completely broke, and nobody would give you anything no matter what you did for them, nor was help available in any way. you would do whatever it took to survive, would you not?

so you sneak into the local walmart, and shoplift some food. a cop catches you, and you go to jail. you would be embittered by this, because you only did what you needed to live, right? then, you arrive, and your cellmate threatens you. you call the guards, but as is typical, they are incompetent and arent in a position to hear your pleas for help.

you have no choice but to either give in to the convict's demands, or be shanked to death. what do you do? i know i'd choose to live.. but as a result, we'd get ourselves caught, having had no previous experience with most forms of crime. and the sentencing would be extended in response.

so the two of you get released at the same time, and the threat of death remains looming over your head. eventually, you become increasingly used to this cycle, and inevitably adapt to a life of crime..

seriously, this world sucks.

one of my runescape names would be okay if i needed a quick name change...

eviljim999, mahjarrat613, rezo the red.. any of those i suppose..

no game should ever be banned, provided it consists entirely of a fictional work. (as in, no live-action recordings of its events happening in real life) all sentient, sane people know fantasy from reality, even when the two are technologically made to look similar.

fiction in all its forms should be protected by the first amendment. why kennedy's administration had to fuck that up i have no clue..

its not like any real life minors were harmed in any way in the making of "the guy game".. why should we care?

and even if for some reason a kid didnt know a game wasnt accurate in real life, he'd soon find out. the first time he imitated it, and someone didnt react the same way as in the game, he'd cease doing it.

as for the shit parenting, we have cps for a reason. no need to bring age access restrictions into any form of fiction. not games, not tv, not books, not pr0n, nothing.

whoops, didnt realize until after my impulse that "tm" in this case meant "trademark".. i was all like "what the damn hell does that mean, "TAP MOB" ?" http://www.rsdb.org/races

anyhow, same logic applies. why ban it from trademarkery.. other than the fact that i dont think trademarks, or most other forms of intellectual property law, should be a thing in the first place..

i dont care if they made a team called the montgomery nigs and made its mascot a blackface.. well, actually i do, but not because its racist, but because i hate sports..

regardless, racial insensitivity should not be made a big deal of. its only when it truly negatively impacts a race or ethnicity that we need care. if someone mentions chicken and blacks in the same sentence, its okay. if someone assaults them because they're black, or arrests them for being mexican, or terminates their employment for being middle eastern, it needs to stop.