https://www.wired.com/2017/02/pewdiepie-racism-alt-right/
(Video links, screenshots etc. in main article)
QuotePewDiePie Was Always Kinda Racist—But Now He's a Hero to Nazis
YOUTUBE STAR PEWDIEPIE'S fall from grace riled up his 53 million subscribers, but unless you're a Gen-Z video gamer, you may find the name splashed across many a headline this week unfamiliar. Lucky you. After the Wall Street Journal reported on his pattern of using anti-Semitic jokes in his videos, Disney's Maker Studios cut ties with the internet celeb and YouTube canceled the second season of his streaming reality show. People might applaud what look like swift measures, but the moves are long overdue.
PewDiePie—the online alter-ego of 27-year-old Swede Felix Kjellberg—is famous for two things: outsized reactions to the games he plays, and trolling. Given the impossibility of knowing whether he means what he says, you can't always know how to respond when he does something like, say, hire people to hold up a sign saying "Death to all Jews." His fans take him seriously, but not literally; his critics take him literally, but not seriously. Sort of like another divisive figure in the news these days.
But PewDiePie started racking up questionable jokes almost from the start of his YouTube career nearly seven years ago. Given that long tradition, and the fact he recently claimed that YouTube discriminates against him because he's white, his fanbase goes beyond gamers. PewDiePie has become a bona fide white supremacist hero.
Hiding Behind "LOL JK"
PewDiePie enjoys extraordinary popularity. His YouTube audience exceeds the subscriber base of Hulu, Apple Music, and the New York Times combined. Fans adore him because he embodies so much of what YouTube—and, really, the internet—loves: zaniness, rough-at-the-edges authenticity, and deadpan mockery.
That mix, though, often leads to a classic internet problem. "Offline you have context clues. You know if someone is going to punch you in the face, right?" says Whitney Phillips, author of This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Internet Culture. "But on the internet, you can't tell if something was intended as a joke, or a sincere expression." Offensive "humor" further confuses the mix: While it's important to call out things like racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia, doing so plays into trolls' hands. They insist they aren't spouting hatred, only proving that you can't take a joke.
PewDiePie long ago mastered this move. He uses "gay," "retard," and "autistic" as playful insults. He makes plenty of rape jokes. And spews out all kinds of racist stuff, too. Take, for example, his commentary in this 2011 let's-play video that includes the Swedish version of the N-word.
In the subtitles, he translates the word as "black," but it's hard to argue the word he uses is anything but a racial slur. (The Swedish Ornithological Society even renamed birds to eliminate any reference to the term.) Another Swedish YouTube user pointed this out and criticized PewDiePie for using the term— but PewDiePie's supporters, who call themselves the Bro Army, didn't care. Neither did YouTube.
He used the N-word again, in English, in this video posted last month.
His fans' negative reactions spawned two hashtag movements on Twitter: #pewdiepieisover and the more gleeful #pewdiepieisoverparty. But this is Twitter, so of course the racist elements of the Bro Army quickly co-opted them.
Quotelemmy antonis @lemmyantonis
#pewdiepieisover Geezes peoples, calm the fuck down he said a word with no racist intentions. Get back to the cotton field and contemplate.
PewDiePie's casual offensiveness doesn't end with the N-word. In another let's play video, he mentions that he can't see people when they're "too black," and fans mention that he's been known to say "black things" scare him.
This 2017 video, in which he decided whether he would "smash," pass on, or sell particular people into slavery is basically a loaded baked potato of racist and misogynist tropes.
In this face-swapping video he repeatedly uses an image of actress Leslie Jones to represent Harambe, the gorilla killed in the Cincinnati zoo last year. I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with that.
None of this means that anything that offends anyone is off limits as a joke. But jokes that goof on racism are different than jokes that rely on race—a fine line to be sure. Even comics known to get away with it (like Sarah Silverman) sometimes miss the mark. What PewDiePie does in these videos is the 4chan version: repeat racist terms and insist they have outlived their offensiveness and are now hilarious.
But PewDiePie recently went beyond racist joking. In December, 2016, he announced plans to delete his YouTube channel once it reached 50 million subscribers because the platform had changed its homepage, a move that meant his viewers saw fewer videos, and less often. Coming from so towering a figure, this was a big deal. Bigger still? His reasoning. In a jittery rant, he claimed that "YouTube wants my channel gone. They want someone else on top. They want someone really extremely cancerous, like Lilly Singh. I'm white. Can I make that comment? But I do think that's a problem."
Singh—better known by her YouTube alias, Superwoman—is a Canadian-Indian rapper and comedian whose songs, parodies, and calls for positivity and #GirlLove have won her more than 11 million subscribers. Days after his rant, facing withering criticism, PewDiePie claimed everything he said about Singh was satire. The belated "LOL JK" is, of course, a defense favored by Milo Yiannopoulos and other trolls, one that raises questions of intent versus effect. "It's the impact that matters," Phillips says. "I think we've reached an era where that 'I was just trolling' excuse needs to be retired."
Becoming an Alt-Right Darling
PewDiePie's reaction, though, also took a step in a new direction. By claiming that media outlets taking his words literally amounted to slander—and by calling publications that did so "the clearest form of cancer"—he added media paranoia to his recipe of open prejudice and dogwhistling, making him an immediate poster boy for white supremacists. Check out the banner leading neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin's The Daily Stormer, which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls the top hate site in America.
The image has been up for weeks, says Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. "With PewDiePie, the question is how did it take them so long?" she says of Disney and YouTube dumping PewDiePie. "Neo-Nazis have been loving this guy. And because he has this massive following, they see those people as supporting their views."
If anything, Disney and YouTube elevated PewDiePie's standing in the so-called alt-right movement's eyes by sending him packing. Just look at the alt-right's preferred social media platform, Gab.
So, intentionally or not, the YouTube celebrity stepped into the political arena. "There has always been a strong feedback loop between public figures, broadcast media, and social media activity," says Anthony McCosker, an expert on digital and social media at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. "I think the current push toward nationalism, tapping into exclusionary and racist sentiment, is driven and emboldened by online activity."
This all places much of the responsibility on Disney and YouTube; chipping away from PewDiePie's already staggering annual income ($15 million in 2016) doesn't prove much to anyone. "They're handmaidens to some pretty ugly sentiments," Beirich says. "YouTube has refused to develop AI systems to hunt down extremist material. We at SPLC have been doing their legwork and reporting it for them, but that's an inefficient system."
You'll have trouble finding consensus on what to do with someone like PewDiePie, especially because his reach is so global. In Austria this week, authorities arrested a man for dressing as Hitler in the Nazi leader's hometown. Should PewDiePie enjoy special privileges because his Hitler costume appeared online? In America, satire has always been protected speech—and there are overwhelmingly compelling reasons to keep it that way—but in a time of "alternative facts," satire becomes increasingly hard to identify.
You can't smooth the ripples PewDiePie's videos created, but you can slow their spread. PewDiePie's business model revolves around grabbing viewers' attention, holding it, and keeping them coming back for more. The real #pewdiepieisoverparty will happen when people start clicking 'unsubscribe.'
RACISMTROLLINGBIGOTRYMISOGYNYDOUCHEBAGGERYETCETCETC
Haha! JK LOL! You can't take a joke! Why so serious? <FAT PERSON PICTURE HERE>
I am glad we don't get any of that here on Languish.
You're becoming my favorite SJW, Berkut :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on February 16, 2017, 10:01:47 AM
Haha! JK LOL! You can't take a joke! Why so serious? <FAT PERSON PICTURE HERE>
I am glad we don't get any of that here on Languish.
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
I haven't followed the Swede enough to give an in depth opinion, but IMHO, if you keep making racist remarks, at some point it doesn't matter if you joke or not, you'll just come off as a racist.
I didn't know who he was until I read that Disney cut all ties with him.
I like watching YouTube Let's Plays and checked him out a few years ago, but I found him too annoying.
Judging by the clips shown on the BBC news he is definitely a complete bellend.
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 10:19:02 AM
I like watching YouTube Let's Plays and checked him out a few years ago, but I found him too annoying.
My son watches that Dan TDM guy to the point where I'm sick of hearing his voice. Meanwhile my daughter is obsessed with that Minecraft-animated show Little Kelly or whatever that is done by those Irish girls. They both watch that shit more than regular TV.
But thankfully I've never come across this Swedish dude.
I remember I accidentally discovered him back in 2014. I was not planning on getting Obsidian's 'Stick of Truth' Southpark game but none-the-less I wanted to see somebody play it so I looked for a let's play on youtube and his popped up.
It was a very surreal experience, like walking into some sort of very deep inside joke that has 20 layers. I just remember watching it thinking 'wait what the hell is going on around here? Is this a let's play or some kind of cult?' The sophomoric 'dudebro' aspect worked alright for a South Park game but it was pretty obnoxious. I wasn't surprised to learn he was some kind of internet celebrity, though a bit taken aback to learn how big of a deal he was. Like he made millions of dollars a month doing twitch streams.
So anyway color me not surprised. Though I thought Swedes were supposed to be enlightened Euro balls of light. Like The Brain.
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 16, 2017, 10:01:47 AM
Haha! JK LOL! You can't take a joke! Why so serious? <FAT PERSON PICTURE HERE>
I am glad we don't get any of that here on Languish.
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
I haven't followed the Swede enough to give an in depth opinion, but IMHO, if you keep making racist remarks, at some point it doesn't matter if you joke or not, you'll just come off as a racist.
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2017, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 10:19:02 AM
I like watching YouTube Let's Plays and checked him out a few years ago, but I found him too annoying.
My son watches that Dan TDM guy to the point where I'm sick of hearing his voice. Meanwhile my daughter is obsessed with that Minecraft-animated show Little Kelly or whatever that is done by those Irish girls. They both watch that shit more than regular TV.
But thankfully I've never come across this Swedish dude.
I eventually banned my kids from youtube. Too much 'lolz' shit in videos little kids would want to watch.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
I remember I accidentally discovered him back in 2014. I was not planning on getting Obsidian's 'Stick of Truth' Southpark game but none-the-less I wanted to see somebody play it so I looked for a let's play on youtube and his popped up.
Watch Jesse Cox' playthrough of that. He's very familiar with South Park, and he likes to explore everywhere, so you won't miss much (any) plot or jokes.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:32:02 AM
I eventually banned my kids from youtube. Too much 'lolz' shit in videos little kids would want to watch.
I'm always on the watch for that crap but so far my kids have kept really focused on the harmless (other than annoying to me) stuff. Lord knows they keep the volume loud enough for me to monitor it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:30:56 AMSo anyway color me not surprised. Though I thought Swedes were supposed to be enlightened Euro balls of light.
Remember Hortlund?
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 10:32:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
I remember I accidentally discovered him back in 2014. I was not planning on getting Obsidian's 'Stick of Truth' Southpark game but none-the-less I wanted to see somebody play it so I looked for a let's play on youtube and his popped up.
Watch Jesse Cox' playthrough of that. He's very familiar with South Park, and he likes to explore everywhere, so you won't miss much (any) plot or jokes.
Ah ok. I might, I love him on the Co-optional podcast.
Quote from: The Larch on February 16, 2017, 10:40:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:30:56 AMSo anyway color me not surprised. Though I thought Swedes were supposed to be enlightened Euro balls of light.
Remember Hortlund?
I try to forget. But the horrors of Hortlund still keep me up at night.
Those there the most legendary debate threads on Languish. I used to compare them to a World War I offensive. As soon as one poster would burn out trying to argue with him another would launch a fresh attack.
Quote from: The Larch on February 16, 2017, 10:40:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:30:56 AMSo anyway color me not surprised. Though I thought Swedes were supposed to be enlightened Euro balls of light.
Remember Hortlund?
Don't remember anything specific.
I remember reactions to Horty more than anything he said.
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2017, 11:10:01 AM
I remember reactions to Horty more than anything he said.
He was a divorce attorney who would post threads about lusting after his clients. Though I guess if you are going to be an attorney to pick up women you could do worse than being a divorce attorney.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2017, 11:10:01 AM
I remember reactions to Horty more than anything he said.
He was a divorce attorney who would post threads about lusting after his clients. Though I guess if you are going to be an attorney to pick up women you could do worse than being a divorce attorney.
I suppose, if you're into vulnerable, crazy, or both, and generally like being in conflict of interest situations. :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 10:45:10 AM
Ah ok. I might, I love him on the Co-optional podcast.
One thing is good at is understanding story structure and tropes. I watched his Life is Strange playthrough (with Dodger) and he pretty much nailed what effects his decisions would have. It's not that he 100% predicts how a narrative goes, but he's pretty decent at picking up clues and details and putting them together. Although he soemtimes also gets it completely wrong. :D
Dodger is like some kind of entertainment mutant. Sometimes I will watch her VODs and she just does nothing but chat about inanities. Yet somehow it is really entertaining.
I thought her visual novel playthroughs with Crendor and Cryaotic were hilarious. The first one ore two run-throughs of Dandelion had me in stitches.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2017, 11:10:01 AM
I remember reactions to Horty more than anything he said.
He was a divorce attorney who would post threads about lusting after his clients. Though I guess if you are going to be an attorney to pick up women you could do worse than being a divorce attorney.
yeah, but it was also the 16 year old daughters he wanted.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2017, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2017, 11:10:01 AM
I remember reactions to Horty more than anything he said.
He was a divorce attorney who would post threads about lusting after his clients. Though I guess if you are going to be an attorney to pick up women you could do worse than being a divorce attorney.
Don't forget all the talk of banging underage girls.
Ah yeah. I forgot about the 'the daughter and the mom are both hot!' dilemmas he would share with us.
Did he ever actually run for office? IIRC that was why he left, no?
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 11:36:29 AM
Did he ever actually run for office? IIRC that was why he left, no?
Yeah he was afraid if anybody ever saw what he posted on Languish it would ruin his political ambitions. I never knew his real name so I have no idea if he has been crawling up the ranks of the Sweden Democrats.
I have huge balls of light and I've never seen any of Pew's stuff, though obviously I've known of him for quite some time. Didn't know he was alt-right.
Quote from: The Brain on February 16, 2017, 11:42:58 AM
I have huge balls of light and I've never seen any of Pew's stuff, though obviously I've known of him for quite some time. Didn't know he was alt-right.
I hear he votes for Hortlund.
So does Brain.
Who?
Hortlund was most active over than ten years ago (as was I). :huh:
Quote from: Delirium on February 16, 2017, 12:44:40 PM
Hortlund was most active over than ten years ago (as was I). :huh:
Yeah I think he stopped posting around 2006 or so.
Hortlund once tried to argue here that Albert Speer was a good man.
Quote from: Zanza on February 16, 2017, 01:03:36 PM
Hortlund once tried to argue here that Albert Speer was a good man.
Oh yeah, forgot about that. "He couldn't possibly have known about what happened to the Jews!"
PewDiePie did nothing wrong.
now the left is cannibalizing pewdiepie? wtf
Quote from: LaCroix on February 16, 2017, 08:50:19 PM
now the left is cannibalizing pewdiepie? wtf
Cannibalizing? Was he one of them to begin with?
Quote from: Zanza on February 16, 2017, 01:03:36 PM
Hortlund once tried to argue here that Albert Speer was a good man.
There were many, many things wrong with Hortlund. I didn't even know there were Swedish creationists.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 16, 2017, 07:38:44 PM
PewDiePie did nothing wrong.
He's made millions enabling other man-children. :hmm:
Yeah PewDiePie will be just fine. He is already set for life and for many succeeding Swede generations.
I mean presuming the commie government does not take all his money. Presuming he even lives in Sweden.
No death tax.
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2017, 12:30:34 PM
No death tax.
Good. The PewDiePie dynasty shall live on.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2017, 12:10:49 PM
Yeah PewDiePie will be just fine. He is already set for life and for many succeeding Swede generations.
I mean presuming the commie government does not take all his money. Presuming he even lives in Sweden.
He lives in the UK.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 16, 2017, 07:38:44 PM
PewDiePie did nothing wrong.
Paying poor people to do awful things is generally considered reprehensible.
Glad to see "PewDiePie" downfall. Annoying name and ugly boy.
So I guess we have an answer.
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/pewdiepie-streams-racist-slur-prompts-dmca-threat-w502231
QuotePewdiepie Streams Racist Slur, Prompts DMCA Threat from Gamemaker
Popular YouTuber called another player the n-word while streaming
A gamemaker says it is filing a takedown notice for all videos featuring its current and future creations by popular YouTuber Felix "Pewdiepie" Kjellberg, after the livestreamer was caught using a racist slur during a weekend gameplay session.
One of the founders of independent developer Campo Santo tweeted over the weekend that he will be filing the DMCA takedown notice for any videos Pewdiepie uploaded of its current game, Firewatch, and any future projects the studio releases.
Glixel reached out to Pewdiepie, Campo Santo and the publisher and creator of PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds but have not received responses at this time.
Pewdiepie has YouTube's current most popular channel with over 57 million subscribers and more than 14 billion views. Quickly gaining popularity around 2011, a lot of his content is based around "Let's Plays," videos where a personality plays through a game while offering their own commentary. Pewdiepie is known for his over-the-top attitude, irreverent jokes and goofy behavior. However, despite his large platform and popularity with children, Pewdiepie has previously found himself in hot water over making off-color jokes about mental illness, nazism and race.
One of his most contentious issues came when he uploaded a video of two men holding up a sign reading "Death to all Jews." After the video caused massive controversy, Disney cancelled its planned reality show with Pewdiepie, saying "he clearly went too far in this case and the resulting videos are inappropriate."
While streaming PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds over the weekend, Pewdiepie called another player a racial slur saying, "What a fucking n---er." Quickly realizing what he's said, Pewdiepie appears to backpedal, laughing, apologizing and saying instead, "What a fucking asshole. ... I don't mean that in a bad way."
In the wake of these comments, Sean Vanaman, co-founder of Campo Santo, tweeted that the developer would be filing a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown of all current and future videos Pewdiepie uploads of its games.
"There is a bit of leeway you have to have with the internet when u wake up every day and make video games," he wrote. "There's also a breaking point. I am sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off of what we make. He's worse than a closeted racist: he's a propagator of despicable garbage that does real damage to the culture around this industry."
Vanaman goes on to urge other developers to take similar strides, and says he will be contacting "folks much larger than us to cut him off from the content that has made him a millionaire."
The DMCA protects digital copyrighted work from infringement. While technically streaming and monetizing a game for a personality's own gain is copyright infringement, streamers are often allowed to do so as they please by publishers and developers because it's seen as free publicity for a game. In fact, Campo Santo has a page dedicated to information for people interested in streaming their game. On that page, the developer says they welcome livestreaming and that people can make money off of those streams. Something the developer appears to be rescinding in Pewdiepie's case.
Michael Lee, founding partner at law firm Morrison & Lee LLP who specializes in video games and law, reiterated that a DMCA can legitimately be used to shut down streamed video game content for copyright infringement.
"Ideas are not protected under copyright but the expression of an idea is," Lee tells Glixel in an email interview. "Therefore, many parts of a video game are protected under copyright including the look of the game, the dialogue, and the music. The DMCA permits copyright owners to issue takedown requests of people infringing the copyright to a game. Technically, video game companies can issue takedown requests for any gameplay that is posted online and companies like Nintendo have done this in the past. However, companies have gotten a lot of bad feedback from issuing takedown requests and usually don't do so. Besides bad feedback, playthroughs drive a lot of new people to a game and therefore it acts as a promotion for the game. I, like many people, don't buy a video game until I see some of it played online."
While a developer has the right to file a DMCA to prevent the use of their content in ways they don't like, Lee says that means it can also be used in ways that aren't beneficial to consumers.
"A person can do and say whatever they want but it is the copyright owner's decision whether to shut that down," Lee says. "Unfortunately, the DMCA has been used to stop criticism and negative comments about the underlying work but technically this is allowable under the DMCA. Also a major consideration is fair use, using a portion of a video could be considered fair use but fair use is a decision left to a judge and jury and its a long and expensive road to get there."
...
I didn't mean the n-word in a bad way...:rolleyes:
As loathsome as this streamer is, selectively enforcing copyright claims seems like a really bad precedent, especially retroactively. If you let him stream without enforcing it, it should be treated as an implicit permission.
The slippery slope here is that publishers can use their selective copyright enforcement to pressure the streamers to say good things about their games, much like they used ad dollars to buy good reviews in traditional gaming publications.
I don't see how a takedown notice creates a slippery slope. They're saying, we let you get away with it until now - but now stop. They're not, afaik, suing him from damages or anything like that.
I mean, you can disagree with the idea of takedown notices and what constitutes fair use, but I don't see anything particularly slippery about a situation that's "if you use our copyrighted material to make money in a way that we find harmless or beneficial, we don't mind - but if you use our copyrighted material in a way that tarnishes our brand, damages our industry, or has social consequences we disapprove of, we will mind and thus we will use legal remedies to stop you."
I could be convinced otherwise by any strong arguments I'm not aware of right now, but I don't see a problem with companies copyright shutting down people who cease to be an asset to the brand. If you require copyright holders to immediately (within a reasonable but still limited time) "speak now or forever hold their peace" then that opens up for all kinds of abuse. Non-enforcement should be viewed as implicit permission (within reason regarding response time etc) but I don't see a problem with permission being revoked. Back in the day you knew that for many games magazines there was a "big release - big score" principle based on ad revenue and similar, without it being a biggie. As long as people don't fuck over their customers too much and you enter fraud territory or similar a light hand seems appropriate. And unlike the poor guys who bought the games magazines streamers' viewers aren't their customers, the viewers typically pay nada just like for normal ads.
Agreed.
Apart from anything else I would want firms to retain flexibility, otherwise they would have to shutdown everyone preemptively.
QuoteI mean, you can disagree with the idea of takedown notices and what constitutes fair use, but I don't see anything particularly slippery about a situation that's "if you use our copyrighted material to make money in a way that we find harmless or beneficial, we don't mind - but if you use our copyrighted material in a way that tarnishes our brand, damages our industry, or has social consequences we disapprove of, we will mind and thus we will use legal remedies to stop you."
That's the slope.
Racist pie isn't a reviewer or critic, as far as i know, he uses someone else product to make money, so i'm ok with companies wanting to distance themselves from him and others who they disagree with.
If they start going after reviewers and critics that's another issue.
If you rely on using copyrighted material that goes beyond fair use or similar then maybe you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.
My guess is that many companies won't think it's good for their business to shut down reviewers.
The problem with using selective takedowns based on content, is that it can create an expectation that the company is monitoring for content more generally and it opens them up to criticism (and potential liability) for e.g. not taking down something else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2017, 09:50:16 AM
The problem with using selective takedowns based on content, is that it can create an expectation that the company is monitoring for content more generally and it opens them up to criticism (and potential liability) for e.g. not taking down something else.
Yeah those guys, crunchy, napoleon, ank and VM could be in big trouble.
Quote from: Syt on February 16, 2017, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 16, 2017, 10:01:47 AM
Haha! JK LOL! You can't take a joke! Why so serious? <FAT PERSON PICTURE HERE>
I am glad we don't get any of that here on Languish.
Yeah, that's what I thought, too.
I haven't followed the Swede enough to give an in depth opinion, but IMHO, if you keep making racist remarks, at some point it doesn't matter if you joke or not, you'll just come off as a racist.
Alternatively, who cares if he actually holds racist views? We know he sets out to be offensive. Not sure being deliberately offensive about racism is any better than being sincerely racist.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 12, 2017, 08:03:27 AM
That's the slope.
How is that a slope? It's a clear binary.
What's the predicted negative outcome that's magnitudes worse than what we initially accept?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2017, 09:50:16 AM
The problem with using selective takedowns based on content, is that it can create an expectation that the company is monitoring for content more generally and it opens them up to criticism (and potential liability) for e.g. not taking down something else.
For sure, but I'd think that's a PR problem for the individual company to manage rather than a legal issue.
Has anyone punched him yet?
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2017, 11:49:40 AM
Has anyone punched him yet?
Gawd you can make it hard to argue against beating up racists
How dat?
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2017, 11:55:51 AM
How dat?
I
think that Tamas is saying you're being a bit of a twat on the subject, which makes it hard for him to notionally be on the same side as you.
I'd rather hit pewdie than the pikeman fwiw.
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2017, 11:49:40 AM
Has anyone punched him yet?
No, he stabbed himself and blamed it on anarchists.
I'm surprised this doesn't fall under some sort of fair use thing. A video of someone playing a video game is copyright protected? How far does this go? Can Nike force people to take down videos because people were wearing their shoes in them? Can I be forced to take down a cell phone picture from inside a sporting event? What if it is a journalist reporting at a sports event, is that protected, and if so, could a video game reviewer be seen as performing some sort of journalistic function?
Something I never really saw coming was racist people becoming millionaires by letting others watch them play video games.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2017, 12:35:21 PM
I'm surprised this doesn't fall under some sort of fair use thing. A video of someone playing a video game is copyright protected? How far does this go? Can Nike force people to take down videos because people were wearing their shoes in them? Can I be forced to take down a cell phone picture from inside a sporting event? What if it is a journalist reporting at a sports event, is that protected, and if so, could a video game reviewer be seen as performing some sort of journalistic function?
Something I never really saw coming was racist people becoming millionaires by letting others watch them play video games.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen the subject argued before. I think where it currently stands is that "let's play" videos don't fall under fair use because it shows the original content in its entirety (or close to), there's no substantial change to the original content, nor is there an overriding societal interest.
I'd expect that Mystery Science Theatre style shows where a movie is shown with commentary similarly doesn't fall under fair use.
From where I sit, there's a significant difference between a "let's play" and a journalist reporting a sports event. In a sports event, the journalist is usually admitted by the organizers anyhow. I'm pretty sure, f. ex., if you stood in the stands of the superbowl and live streamed the whole game via your cell phone with your comments, you'd be vulnerable to DCMA takedown requests as well.
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 12, 2017, 01:36:12 PM
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
:D
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 12, 2017, 01:36:12 PM
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
So what does qualify as racist? You have to admit his timing was rather bad :P
DMCA takedowns are par for the course these days.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2017, 12:35:21 PM
I'm surprised this doesn't fall under some sort of fair use thing. A video of someone playing a video game is copyright protected? How far does this go? Can Nike force people to take down videos because people were wearing their shoes in them? Can I be forced to take down a cell phone picture from inside a sporting event? What if it is a journalist reporting at a sports event, is that protected, and if so, could a video game reviewer be seen as performing some sort of journalistic function?
Something I never really saw coming was racist people becoming millionaires by letting others watch them play video games.
Nobody knows since everybody is too scared to work it out in a trial. The precedent would be very damaging to the loser.
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2017, 01:13:03 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2017, 12:35:21 PM
I'm surprised this doesn't fall under some sort of fair use thing. A video of someone playing a video game is copyright protected? How far does this go? Can Nike force people to take down videos because people were wearing their shoes in them? Can I be forced to take down a cell phone picture from inside a sporting event? What if it is a journalist reporting at a sports event, is that protected, and if so, could a video game reviewer be seen as performing some sort of journalistic function?
Something I never really saw coming was racist people becoming millionaires by letting others watch them play video games.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen the subject argued before. I think where it currently stands is that "let's play" videos don't fall under fair use because it shows the original content in its entirety (or close to), there's no substantial change to the original content, nor is there an overriding societal interest.
I'd expect that Mystery Science Theatre style shows where a movie is shown with commentary similarly doesn't fall under fair use.
From where I sit, there's a significant difference between a "let's play" and a journalist reporting a sports event. In a sports event, the journalist is usually admitted by the organizers anyhow. I'm pretty sure, f. ex., if you stood in the stands of the superbowl and live streamed the whole game via your cell phone with your comments, you'd be vulnerable to DCMA takedown requests as well.
Key thing about fair use is that its a multiple factor test, there isn't much in the way of safe harbors. It's also an affirmative defense on which defendant bears the burden of proof.
Jake pretty much has it - in the PewDiePie example if you apply the four factors - there is a use with an intent to commercially exploit, the underlying work is creative, substantial amounts of the work are being taken. I suppose market effect is debatable.
Mystery Science Theater - my understanding is that they got licenses to the underlying material.
All millinials to GITMO
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2017, 01:29:10 AM
I don't see how a takedown notice creates a slippery slope. They're saying, we let you get away with it until now - but now stop. They're not, afaik, suing him from damages or anything like that.
I mean, you can disagree with the idea of takedown notices and what constitutes fair use, but I don't see anything particularly slippery about a situation that's "if you use our copyrighted material to make money in a way that we find harmless or beneficial, we don't mind - but if you use our copyrighted material in a way that tarnishes our brand, damages our industry, or has social consequences we disapprove of, we will mind and thus we will use legal remedies to stop you."
It's a slippery slope because in effect it establishes that every streamer is infringing on copyrights, but the publisher will leave themselves the discretion to decide who gets punished and who gets let off (for now). Those videos are a source of income to streamers, so taking them down is dealing a hit to their livelihood.
Yes, right now they're using their powers of selective enforcement against an unsympathetic target, but they can then gradually escalate matters to selectively enforce their copyright against streamers that criticize their latest released game, for example. "Oops, sorry, it has to come to our attention that over the last five years, videos featuring our games earned you 100,000,000 views. Please delete all these videos ASAP and do not make any new ones that feature our unfinished buggy piece of shit games."
They don't have to gradually escalate anything. They have the copyright, and streamers are almost certainly legally infringing it. They can enforce it for whatever reason they choose. In this case, the reason is the guy is an asshole and bad for their brand.
They could certainly choose to enforce it if they felt that someone's criticism was more damaging than the fall out of refusing to let them infringe.
There is no legal issue here one way or the other - there is no slippery slope. Streamers are operating under the suffrage of the content owners now.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2017, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2017, 01:29:10 AM
I don't see how a takedown notice creates a slippery slope. They're saying, we let you get away with it until now - but now stop. They're not, afaik, suing him from damages or anything like that.
I mean, you can disagree with the idea of takedown notices and what constitutes fair use, but I don't see anything particularly slippery about a situation that's "if you use our copyrighted material to make money in a way that we find harmless or beneficial, we don't mind - but if you use our copyrighted material in a way that tarnishes our brand, damages our industry, or has social consequences we disapprove of, we will mind and thus we will use legal remedies to stop you."
It's a slippery slope because in effect it establishes that every streamer is infringing on copyrights, but the publisher will leave themselves the discretion to decide who gets punished and who gets let off (for now). Those videos are a source of income to streamers, so taking them down is dealing a hit to their livelihood.
Yes, right now they're using their powers of selective enforcement against an unsympathetic target, but they can then gradually escalate matters to selectively enforce their copyright against streamers that criticize their latest released game, for example. "Oops, sorry, it has to come to our attention that over the last five years, videos featuring our games earned you 100,000,000 views. Please delete all these videos ASAP and do not make any new ones that feature our unfinished buggy piece of shit games."
If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.
And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 12, 2017, 01:36:12 PM
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
I have yet to meet a single person who used derogatory terms on a race/ethnic group and did not have derogatory views on them to match.
If we don't have to pretend that the antifa types are anything else than violent oppressor-wannabes, we don't have to pretend that people who talk and act like racists, are racists, either.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 03:54:33 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 12, 2017, 01:36:12 PM
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
I have yet to meet a single person who used derogatory terms on a race/ethnic group and did not have derogatory views on them to match.
If we don't have to pretend that the antifa types are anything else than violent oppressor-wannabes, we don't have to pretend that people who talk and act like racists, are racists, either.
I've never understood why it matters whether someone who deliberately spouts racist slurs actually sincerely holds racist views or not.
The intention to act offensively is clear, and in my opinion, that's the issue.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 02:48:22 AM
If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.
And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.
I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when. This creates a situation with undue leverage. Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes. In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 02:48:22 AM
If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.
And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.
I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when. This creates a situation with undue leverage. Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes. In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.
Like I said earlier I think that non-enforcement likely should be regarded as implicit consent, which can be revoked. In that situation "everyone's a lawbreaker" isn't true, no one is a lawbreaker as long as they stop when the owners say stop. If your business depends on the use of material that is owned by someone else then you can always talk to them and make sure they're OK with what you're doing before you make huge commitments (if you don't your CRO should slap you, if you're a one man operation you can slap yourself).
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 08:16:07 AM
I've never understood why it matters whether someone who deliberately spouts racist slurs actually sincerely holds racist views or not.
Yeah I mean if somebody sincerely holds racist views who cares if they never actually ever do or say anything racist?
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 08:16:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 03:54:33 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 12, 2017, 01:36:12 PM
It was unwise for PewDiePie to say what he did, but I still haven't seen any evidence that he's actually racist, rather than just insensitive. Also, the DMCA takedown request is spurious.
I have yet to meet a single person who used derogatory terms on a race/ethnic group and did not have derogatory views on them to match.
If we don't have to pretend that the antifa types are anything else than violent oppressor-wannabes, we don't have to pretend that people who talk and act like racists, are racists, either.
I've never understood why it matters whether someone who deliberately spouts racist slurs actually sincerely holds racist views or not.
The intention to act offensively is clear, and in my opinion, that's the issue.
It matters to God.
Oh right, you're one of Them.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 08:16:07 AM
I've never understood why it matters whether someone who deliberately spouts racist slurs actually sincerely holds racist views or not.
Yeah I mean if somebody sincerely holds racist views who cares if they never actually ever do or say anything racist?
Heh, in the view of many in the modern left, racism can be sort of like sin in Catholicism.
It doesn't matter if you act on it; a sinful desire or thought is still a sin. Though of course acting on it is worse. ;)
Indeed, you could substitute "racism" for "sin" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ignoring the bit about "divine goodness" and the like) and it works pretty well:
Quote1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144
Racism has an "original sin" aspect to it; if you were born White, you inherit it without necessarily doing anything, through the mechanism of 'privilege', from historical factors. Like original sin, you can only get rid of it by accepting certain doctrines, and engaging in a sort of confessional ritual in which you admit your privilege and resolve to take account of it in the future (to do otherwise would amount to a venal sin).
Racism can be a venal sin - if folks just trade on their privilege without thinking about it - or it can be a mortal sin - where folks make a conscious choice to be racist.
;)
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 10:00:42 AM
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
What's wrong with it being outlandish?
I'm certainly not the only person to have noticed this.
https://www.amazon.ca/Americas-Original-Sin-Privilege-America/dp/1587433427
QuoteAmerica's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another. Racism is truly our nation's original sin. "It's time we right this unacceptable wrong," says bestselling author and leading Christian activist Jim Wallis.
More: https://sojo.net/articles/remembering-trayvon/racism-americas-original-sin
... are these folks "outlandish" too?
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 10:00:42 AM
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
Don't you believe in the checking of the privileges and all that jazz?
Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.
The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 10:00:42 AM
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
I don't know Jacob - I find Malthus' argument interesting. I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 10:37:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 10:00:42 AM
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
I don't know Jacob - I find Malthus' argument interesting. I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.
I think the "outlandish" comment is simply a symptom of the idea that "sin" is an inherently absurd concept. It triggers discomfort in the form of cognitive dissonance to be 'accused' of using such notions, if you happen to think that - as many on the political left do.
For those more used to 'sin' as a viable notion, it doesn't.
It is interesting.
I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.
It's also how insurance works.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
What's wrong with it being outlandish?
Nothing wrong with being outlandish if you own it. The ;) however makes it seem like you're not quite ready to stand behind your argument.
QuoteI'm certainly not the only person to have noticed this.
https://www.amazon.ca/Americas-Original-Sin-Privilege-America/dp/1587433427
More: https://sojo.net/articles/remembering-trayvon/racism-americas-original-sin
... are these folks "outlandish" too?
You're posting links to people whose social justice activism is explicitly motivated by their (evangelical) Christian faith. Jim Wallis (first link) is a Christian activist. The Sojourners' tagline is "faith in action for social justice". It is far from surprising that Jim Wallis or the Sojourners frame their approach to social justice in the language of Christianity, but that is not evidence for the construction you propose - that "for the left racism can be sort of like sin in Catholicism."
If your argument is that a commitment to Christianity implies a commitment to social justice - and that conversely being a racist is sinful for a committed Christian - then I'm happy to agree. I expect the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - whom you link - agree as well. The current Pope probably does as well, as I expect the Dalai Lama and Aga Khan and many other religious leaders do for their respective faith groups.
If your argument is that the existence of the likes of the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - evangelical Christian social justice activists - is evidence that "the left" as a whole approach social justice problems like the Catholic Church approaches sin then I think you are making a spurious and unsupported argument (or alternately that you are drawing parallels that are so overly broad that they could apply to almost any context).
There are leftists whose leftism is motivated by their faith - Christian, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist etc. This does not make leftism as a whole religiously inspired, nor does it imply that leftism as a whole (however you define it) is therefore similar to a religion.
On the other hand, if your purpose is to paint "the left" as irrational and dismissable by equating it to a belief system you don't subscribe to then I think you've constructed a fairly successful piece of rhetoric - as evidenced by the interest of Spicy and Beebs both of whom are dismissive of Catholics and "the left". I don't, however, think there's much substance to it.
I think from your use of ;) that that's what you were doing, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's some other argument that is advanced or objective served by examining the claimed parallels between "the left" and Catholicism?
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 10:16:26 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 10:00:42 AM
That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a ;) behind it Malthus.
Don't you believe in the checking of the privileges and all that jazz?
It is not a religious conviction, no.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.
The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.
Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when. This creates a situation with undue leverage. Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes. In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.
I think you fail to distinguish here between criminal law and civil law. It is true that criminals should be able to predict the consequences of breaking the criminal law, but I think you are placing an impossible burden on businesses if you require them to take legal action every time someone infringes on their property, or else lose all protection to their property. Businesses should not be placed in the position of government. They should be able to decide the level of effort they want to exert to protect their property, and should be able to ignore infringement that they do not think it worthwhile to try to stop.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
It is interesting.
I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.
Completely different. Offsets do actually decrease carbon release somewhere in the world. Indulgences just lined the pockets of the church.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
What's wrong with it being outlandish?
I don't think it's outlandish. I think it's an interesting tool to think with; but perhaps less so to judge with.
Does race, and racism, behave as sin does in Christian doctrine(s) among leftists? I think the answer will have a lot more to do with which leftists one examines. There are leftists groups organized around churches who are familiar with the concept, and see it as a way to put words on a problem, and there are leftist groups who would see it as judgemental. That the language of political belief borrows heavily from the language of religion is nothing surprising. It has been so for centuries. We still speak of dogma, of purity, of true believers, of sin, of promised lands, of City on the Hill, etc. In that regard, the use of religious language to describe political commitments and ideals can be used to inspire, if one speaks to people who share in the belief, and can be used to disparage, and delegitimize, when one subscribes that political beliefs are arrived at "rationally" while others have blind faith (e.g., I, of course, hold my political belief out of dispassionate, rational, cool examination while my opponents slavishly and stupidly follow their gurus/pastor, etc.).
Race, and racism, have long been described as the original sin of America. Again, nothing surprising there, as such language was deployed not just by civil rights leaders, but by abolitionists at least since the 18th century. So did the language of atonement.
That people inherit the social conditions in which they live (our previous discussions about systemic racism) independent of their will has a long history, and its modern incarnation is perhaps better linked with the birth of sociology and anthropology in the 19th century, than sin. What makes it closer to the concept of original sin is the issue of individual atonement. I think there is value to be gained by, say, reading some political assemblies as akin to Massachusetts' puritans anxieties - on the left and on the right, whenever issues of purity are involved (I recently attended a conference panel about Reagan. OMG). I think it brings attention to very similar dynamics on matters/dangers of pride and purity, etc, and the necessities to transform the check on one's hubris into collective action.
I must admit, however, and from our past discussions on the topic, that I read your post more as a way to discredit the practice than a way to foster understanding. I would be happy to be told I am wrong.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
QuoteAmerica's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.
To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 12:43:14 PM
QuoteAmerica's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.
To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.
[/quote]
Not at all. Groups of indigenous people had been exterminated, certainly not all of them. And while slavery existed, so did abolitionism at the moment of the US foundation.
The idea of it being an original sin, is that both of these ideas informed profoundly the making of the United States as a political community, which saw westward expansion as a right, and slavery as a necessity, while erasing both from its foundational documents. That's the sin: to believe as if it had nothing to do with the birth of the American Republic, and thus, to continue to hold it has nothing to do with it still today.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.
The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.
Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?
:rolleyes:
I think you're imputing bad intentions on Malthus that are not warranted.
It's a simple observation, nothing more. For many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well. As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights. Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.
Of course the analogy breaks down if you push it to far. Malthus isn't saying the political left is a religion.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 12:52:37 PMFor many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well. As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights. Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.
What would you say are the equivalent, on the right (if any)?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2017, 12:49:31 PM
Not at all. Groups of indigenous people had been exterminated, certainly not all of them. And while slavery existed, so did abolitionism at the moment of the US foundation.
The idea of it being an original sin, is that both of these ideas informed profoundly the making of the United States as a political community, which saw westward expansion as a right, and slavery as a necessity, while erasing both from its foundational documents. That's the sin: to believe as if it had nothing to do with the birth of the American Republic, and thus, to continue to hold it has nothing to do with it still today.
Disease had decimated the indigenous folks and they were politically divided and had a low birth rate. There are several times more indigenous people living the present borders of the US today than there were in 1783. They were small in number and politically divided and easy prey for every asshole out there, like Texas' own notorious John Robert Baylor. Yet it seems to be repeated often that there was some kind of mass slaughter. I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.
That is not to say there might not have been one if they were more of a good reason to be afraid they might win. Certainly plenty of people were in favor of that. But I feel like just casually throwing around the idea that some kind of mass genocide took place, when it really did not, obscures the actual events. It also puts me in the really annoying position of having to defend our policies in this area, which might have seemed alright on paper (negotiate with each tribe and try to keep the settlers separate from them and so forth) in practice were disastrous since the indigenous people were comparatively powerless and had few powerful lobbyists and supporters to guard their interests. Actually that remains a big problem today.
Now I think considering the attempt to 'civilize' them and destroy their cultures it could be considered a cultural genocide. That was very effective at permanently destroying many languages and cultures.
What's up with J-man?
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
QuoteAmerica's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.
To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.
To be fair, both of those things existed (in Europe and in the Americas) before Europeans discovered the New World. Not that that excuses any particular group, but the idea that this is some kind of "original sin" unique to the US is very tunnel-visioned. American exceptionalism isn't always exceptional.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 12:30:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
What's wrong with it being outlandish?
Nothing wrong with being outlandish if you own it. The ;) however makes it seem like you're not quite ready to stand behind your argument.
Huh? You are reading waaay to much into the use of a smilie. :lol:
The " ;) " was simply an "isn't this an odd thing?" comment.
Quote
You're posting links to people whose social justice activism is explicitly motivated by their (evangelical) Christian faith. Jim Wallis (first link) is a Christian activist. The Sojourners' tagline is "faith in action for social justice". It is far from surprising that Jim Wallis or the Sojourners frame their approach to social justice in the language of Christianity, but that is not evidence for the construction you propose - that "for the left racism can be sort of like sin in Catholicism."
If your argument is that a commitment to Christianity implies a commitment to social justice - and that conversely being a racist is sinful for a committed Christian - then I'm happy to agree. I expect the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - whom you link - agree as well. The current Pope probably does as well, as I expect the Dalai Lama and Aga Khan and many other religious leaders do for their respective faith groups.
If your argument is that the existence of the likes of the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - evangelical Christian social justice activists - is evidence that "the left" as a whole approach social justice problems like the Catholic Church approaches sin then I think you are making a spurious and unsupported argument (or alternately that you are drawing parallels that are so overly broad that they could apply to almost any context).
There are leftists whose leftism is motivated by their faith - Christian, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist etc. This does not make leftism as a whole religiously inspired, nor does it imply that leftism as a whole (however you define it) is therefore similar to a religion.
... aaand I never said it was either "religiously inspired" (though social activism does have undeniable religious roots) or that it is, in fact, similar to a "religion".
Quote
On the other hand, if your purpose is to paint "the left" as irrational and dismissable by equating it to a belief system you don't subscribe to then I think you've constructed a fairly successful piece of rhetoric - as evidenced by the interest of Spicy and Beebs both of whom are dismissive of Catholics and "the left". I don't, however, think there's much substance to it.
... which my purpose is not ...
QuoteI think from your use of ;) that that's what you were doing, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's some other argument that is advanced or objective served by examining the claimed parallels between "the left" and Catholicism?
I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! :D
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 12:52:37 PM
Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.
Yeah there are extremists that demand purity, making the perfect the enemy of the good. I did think it was weird how they moved to block the Toronto cops from marching because of stuff American cops were doing.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2017, 12:56:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 12:52:37 PMFor many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well. As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights. Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.
What would you say are the equivalent, on the right (if any)?
I can't think of any off the top of my head.
I mean there certainly are various right-wing orthodixes that politicians will be punished for if they go against them. It's unfortunately difficult to be a conservative and in favour of carbon taxes. But that's not the same phenomenon I think Malthus was talking about.
Maybe religion itself? Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians"). But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God. I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist. But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.
Quote from: grumbler on September 13, 2017, 01:08:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
QuoteAmerica's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.
To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.
To be fair, both of those things existed (in Europe and in the Americas) before Europeans discovered the New World. Not that that excuses any particular group, but the idea that this is some kind of "original sin" unique to the US is very tunnel-visioned. American exceptionalism isn't always exceptional.
Yep. Most countries in this hemisphere do share all that wonderful colonial stuff with us.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 01:12:50 PMMaybe religion itself? Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians"). But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God. I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist. But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.
Yeah, I thought of atheism too. Climate change, I am not sure. I have the feeling it's getting increasingly taboo for an increasingly larger part of the right. What about abortion?
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.
The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.
Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?
:rolleyes:
I just think it is funny to see people who clearly don't believe in "sin" in other contexts, accept it in this. Since I don't think the idea of sin is "silly" (though I don't myself subscribe to it - fancy that, disagreeing with something but not trashing it or demonizing those who hold it! Can that be possible?), this isn't a "knock" on the idea, so much as an observation about it.
I'm trying to account for your vehemence on the warpath here ... I mean, without responding in kind.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2017, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
What's wrong with it being outlandish?
I don't think it's outlandish. I think it's an interesting tool to think with; but perhaps less so to judge with.
Does race, and racism, behave as sin does in Christian doctrine(s) among leftists? I think the answer will have a lot more to do with which leftists one examines. There are leftists groups organized around churches who are familiar with the concept, and see it as a way to put words on a problem, and there are leftist groups who would see it as judgemental. That the language of political belief borrows heavily from the language of religion is nothing surprising. It has been so for centuries. We still speak of dogma, of purity, of true believers, of sin, of promised lands, of City on the Hill, etc. In that regard, the use of religious language to describe political commitments and ideals can be used to inspire, if one speaks to people who share in the belief, and can be used to disparage, and delegitimize, when one subscribes that political beliefs are arrived at "rationally" while others have blind faith (e.g., I, of course, hold my political belief out of dispassionate, rational, cool examination while my opponents slavishly and stupidly follow their gurus/pastor, etc.).
Race, and racism, have long been described as the original sin of America. Again, nothing surprising there, as such language was deployed not just by civil rights leaders, but by abolitionists at least since the 18th century. So did the language of atonement.
That people inherit the social conditions in which they live (our previous discussions about systemic racism) independent of their will has a long history, and its modern incarnation is perhaps better linked with the birth of sociology and anthropology in the 19th century, than sin. What makes it closer to the concept of original sin is the issue of individual atonement. I think there is value to be gained by, say, reading some political assemblies as akin to Massachusetts' puritans anxieties - on the left and on the right, whenever issues of purity are involved (I recently attended a conference panel about Reagan. OMG). I think it brings attention to very similar dynamics on matters/dangers of pride and purity, etc, and the necessities to transform the check on one's hubris into collective action.
I must admit, however, and from our past discussions on the topic, that I read your post more as a way to discredit the practice than a way to foster understanding. I would be happy to be told I am wrong.
I wish I was clever enough to subtly discredit a whole political stance by making an observation about it.
If I had those rhetorical skills, I'd definitely put them to use! :lol:
But no, I was merely observing something that struck me as odd, triggered by Valmy's question of why anyone would care if someone was sincerely racist, if they never said or did anything racist. (Answer: for some at least, racism is like sin, and sin is bad even if it is merely in your heart).
Is this an argument that racism is somehow "not bad" or that such people are crazy? No.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:04:55 PM
I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.
I didn't realize it was your objection to the term - indeed it doesn't make sense to speak of a genocide for "Indigenous people" precisely because there were hundreds of indigenous nations. (It also renders indigenous people today invisible. Every year, some of my students needed to be reminded that Indigenous peoples still exist!
That being said, there were many genocidal episodes - at the scale of these nations. I tend to think we would still call it a genocide if, say, all of Portugal was killed while the rest of Europe survived.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:22:05 PM
I wish I was clever enough to subtly discredit a whole political stance by making an observation about it.
Well, you *are* a lawyer. ;)
As for the rest, noted. :)
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
I just thought it was a neat little observation.
Alright then, thanks for clarifying :)
QuoteI wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! :D
Yet you already have several subscribers to your newsletter ;)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2017, 01:15:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 01:12:50 PMMaybe religion itself? Take Trump for example, who seems to be quite indifferent about religion (see "2 Corinthians"). But he still felt it necessary to be seen going to Church and to profess a belief in God. I think you'd be hard-pressed to be a conservative politician and an avowed atheist. But (though not to the same extent) applies to many left-wing politicians too who wear their faith on their sleeve.
Yeah, I thought of atheism too. Climate change, I am not sure. I have the feeling it's getting increasingly taboo for an increasingly larger part of the right. What about abortion?
Atheism's more like a shibboleth - right wing politicians are simply expected to mouth the right platitudes about religion, but no-one appears to care if they "sin in their hearts" by secretly being atheists.
Actually, there is an even stronger irony on the right than the one I've pointed out on the left - that the right, who is always mouthing about religion, has apparently completely forgotten about the notion of sin. If the treatment of racism by the left is like the treatment of "sin" (and that is funny/ironic because many on the left don't otherwise hold with sin), the right is even more funny/ironic, in allegedly upholding religion as a virtue but completely ignoring sin altogether.
Look at Trump. He's committed pretty well every sin that exists, and if he's forgotten a few, it is only for lack of opportunity - yet many on the right don't appear to give a damn.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! :D
It is interesting. It reminds me of Jonathon Haidt's observation that what sex is for the right, food is for the left.
Quote from: grumbler on September 13, 2017, 01:31:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
I just thought it was a neat little observation. I wasn't signing up as a warrior on the other side of the culture wars, if that is your concern! :D
It is interesting. It reminds me of Jonathon Haidt's observation that what sex is for the right, food is for the left.
Damn, I never heard that one before. :lol:
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2017, 01:23:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:04:55 PM
I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.
I didn't realize it was your objection to the term - indeed it doesn't make sense to speak of a genocide for "Indigenous people" precisely because there were hundreds of indigenous nations. (It also renders indigenous people today invisible. Every year, some of my students needed to be reminded that Indigenous peoples still exist!
That being said, there were many genocidal episodes - at the scale of these nations. I tend to think we would still call it a genocide if, say, all of Portugal was killed while the rest of Europe survived.
True. And it would be appropriate in the context of those specific episodes.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:30:36 PM
Look at Trump. He's committed pretty well every sin that exists, and if he's forgotten a few, it is only for lack of opportunity - yet many on the right don't appear to give a damn.
Things were different in the 80s and 90s. The right used to take that stuff very seriously. Heck they once even made Trent Lott resign from the leadership when he talked about how everybody should have voted Dixiecrat in 1948.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2017, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
It is interesting.
I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.
Completely different. Offsets do actually decrease carbon release somewhere in the world. Indulgences just lined the pockets of the church.
:hug:
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:30:36 PM
Look at Trump. He's committed pretty well every sin that exists, and if he's forgotten a few, it is only for lack of opportunity - yet many on the right don't appear to give a damn.
Things were different in the 80s and 90s. The right used to take that stuff very seriously. Heck they once even made Trent Lott resign from the leadership when he talked about how everybody should have voted Dixiecrat in 1948.
There just seems to be a huge degree of moral degeneration on the right in the US these days - and by that, I mean in their terms. It is like, for a sizable number of them, upright morality (as THEY define it, which is definitely not how I'd define it) just doesn't matter any more.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 01:47:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2017, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
It is interesting.
I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.
Completely different. Offsets do actually decrease carbon release somewhere in the world. Indulgences just lined the pockets of the church.
:hug:
Only two people would know this about indulgences: God and Satan. Which is Yi?
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:51:07 PM
There just seems to be a huge degree of moral degeneration on the right in the US these days - and by that, I mean in their terms. It is like, for a sizable number of them, upright morality (as THEY define it, which is definitely not how I'd define it) just doesn't matter any more.
The justification seems to be that, yes we have our moral failings, but the Democrats are evil!
Quote from: frunk on September 13, 2017, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:51:07 PM
There just seems to be a huge degree of moral degeneration on the right in the US these days - and by that, I mean in their terms. It is like, for a sizable number of them, upright morality (as THEY define it, which is definitely not how I'd define it) just doesn't matter any more.
The justification seems to be that, yes we have our moral failings, but the Democrats are evil!
I think that's close to it. Getting back to Trump-- he may be an unrepentent sinner, but at least he's staking out positions (publicly anyway) on the right side of the culture war.
Conversely, Bill Clinton was beloved by feminists and others on the left because of what was called his "public morality" (positions on abortion, etc.), in spite of the fact that he had harassed, took advantage of, and possibly raped women in his personal life.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 02:14:59 PM
Conversely, Bill Clinton was beloved by feminists and others on the left because of what was called his "public morality" (positions on abortion, etc.), in spite of the fact that he had harassed, took advantage of, and possibly raped women in his personal life.
Boy is he not a popular man now though. But mostly for locking up all the black people and signing those evil free trade agreements.
And to be fair to the left the public did not really know how bad he was until after he had already been elected twice. We knew that about Trump years before he ever ran for office.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:15:59 PM
I just think it is funny to see people who clearly don't believe in "sin" in other contexts, accept it in this.
It's a bit of a leap to go from making "a neat little observation" to claim that "the left" has accepted the idea of "sin" when it comes to the concept of racism.
I don't think "the left" has accepted it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 02:23:59 PM
Boy is he not a popular man now though. But mostly for locking up all the black people and signing those evil free trade agreements.
Is that widespread, though? I'm sure he'd still do okay in opinion polls.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2017, 02:23:59 PM
Boy is he not a popular man now though. But mostly for locking up all the black people and signing those evil free trade agreements.
Is that widespread, though? I'm sure he'd still do okay in opinion polls.
Not sure actually. The leftists who hate the Clintons hate them for mostly those reasons and are rather vocal. But I have a feeling those are the sort of puritanical ones you are talking about anyway.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 02:51:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 01:15:59 PM
I just think it is funny to see people who clearly don't believe in "sin" in other contexts, accept it in this.
It's a bit of a leap to go from making "a neat little observation" to claim that "the left" has accepted the idea of "sin" when it comes to the concept of racism.
I don't think "the left" has accepted it.
Fine, you are correct: some on the left merely act as if they have. It is "like" the treatment of sin, without actually being an acceptance of sin.
The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in
actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.
I personally don't think that this comparison puts the left in a worse light than the right. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:03:36 PM
Fine, you are correct: some on the left merely act as if they have. It is "like" the treatment of sin, without actually being an acceptance of sin.
The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.
I personally don't think that this comparison puts the left in a worse light than the right. :lol:
I am: mollified :hug:
... I think having lunch helped with that too.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:03:36 PM
The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.
To be fair, those of the political right who believe in sin are almost certainly Christians. And Christians believe in more about forgiveness than they do sin.
Not that Donald Trump for one ever claimed he needed to be forgiven for anything, but in other situations that might be a large part of the explanation.
Sure they believe in forgiveness but only after you take responsibility for your actions...or at least that was supposed to be how it works.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:03:36 PM
The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.
To be fair, those of the political right who believe in sin are almost certainly Christians. And Christians believe in more about forgiveness than they do sin.
Not that Donald Trump for one ever claimed he needed to be forgiven for anything, but in other situations that might be a large part of the explanation.
we know very different Christians :D
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2017, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:03:36 PM
The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.
To be fair, those of the political right who believe in sin are almost certainly Christians. And Christians believe in more about forgiveness than they do sin.
Not that Donald Trump for one ever claimed he needed to be forgiven for anything, but in other situations that might be a large part of the explanation.
As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.
Nowadays, it seems to be all about tribalism. My tribe good, your tribe bad. Be damned to whether the chiefs of my tribe are morally rotten. At best, it is 'let's hold our noses and vote for the rotter, maybe he will pass legislation that we approve of'.
To be fair both sides do that to some degree ... but I see more of that, with less justification, on the political right in the US. Nothing else can explain believing Christians supporting Trump, who is in his own person almost an absurd parody of lust, greed, wrath and pride. :lol:
Edit: you could probably make a case for sloth, envy and gluttony too, to round out the seven - but that's more of a stretch.
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:50:18 PM
As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.
It is? Which church has this as their doctrine?
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 04:19:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 13, 2017, 03:50:18 PM
As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.
It is? Which church has this as their doctrine?
Catholicism, for one.
Acknowledgement of sin = confession.
Genuine repentance = the supposed outcome of the sacrament of penance.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
This is supposed to end with genuine turning away from the sin:
Quote
1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).
Quote
1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."
Despite the fact Jesus forgave original sins way back when, a post-baptism sinner must be reconciled with the Church:
Quote
1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44
1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46
1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.
In short, you only get "forgiven", in the sense of "reconciled with the Church" (and thus "with God") if you do the whole nine yards: confess, be penitent, and resolve not to sin again ...
But you're talking about forgiveness from God. God gets to set all those prerequisites. He also gets to take vengeance and do other things people don't get to do.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 02:14:59 PM
I think that's close to it. Getting back to Trump-- he may be an unrepentent sinner, but at least he's staking out positions (publicly anyway) on the right side of the culture war.
Conversely, Bill Clinton was beloved by feminists and others on the left because of what was called his "public morality" (positions on abortion, etc.), in spite of the fact that he had harassed, took advantage of, and possibly raped women in his personal life.
Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality. But good conservative Christian aren't - which is why so many of them declared Billy to be "unfit" for office based on his private conduct alone. No talk about forgiving the sinner then.
There's no escaping the fact that tribal political identification Trumps principle, even when those principles are handed down from on high.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2017, 05:45:33 PM
Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.
Not sure I buy this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2017, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2017, 05:45:33 PM
Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.
Not sure I buy this.
i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2017, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2017, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2017, 05:45:33 PM
Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.
Not sure I buy this.
i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.
Who, if anyone, accepts distinctions between private and public morality?
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2017, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2017, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2017, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2017, 05:45:33 PM
Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.
Not sure I buy this.
i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.
Who, if anyone, accepts distinctions between private and public morality?
Evangelicals apparently.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts
In 2011 white evangelicals were the least likely to believe that a politician who has behaved immorally could be expected to act ethically and dutifully execute the functions of their office. In 2016 they were the most likely to believe it.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 09:03:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 02:48:22 AM
If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.
And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.
I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when. This creates a situation with undue leverage. Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes. In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.
Like I said earlier I think that non-enforcement likely should be regarded as implicit consent, which can be revoked. In that situation "everyone's a lawbreaker" isn't true, no one is a lawbreaker as long as they stop when the owners say stop. If your business depends on the use of material that is owned by someone else then you can always talk to them and make sure they're OK with what you're doing before you make huge commitments (if you don't your CRO should slap you, if you're a one man operation you can slap yourself).
Telling someone to stop streaming their games is one thing. Taking down the content that has been created long time ago with an implicit consent at the time is a whole other ball game. If the concept of implicit consent applies, then it can't be withdrawn retroactively.
Most people do not make judgments based on their ideology, whether that ideology is political or religious. They make judgments for other reasons and then use ideology as an after-the-fact justification (but only when it fits their judgment).
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2017, 02:21:58 PM
So what does qualify as racist?
Him saying or doing something that indicates he values people differently based on race.
QuoteYou have to admit his timing was rather bad :P
Yes.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 03:54:33 AM
I have yet to meet a single person who used derogatory terms on a race/ethnic group and did not have derogatory views on them to match.
He didn't use the word in the context of insulting a race of people.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2017, 03:54:33 AMIf we don't have to pretend that the antifa types are anything else than violent oppressor-wannabes, we don't have to pretend that people who talk and act like racists, are racists, either.
I don't think using a bad word, outside of it's original context no less, is equivalent to using violence and inciting others to be violent.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 13, 2017, 09:29:19 PM
Him saying or doing something that indicates he values people differently based on race.
Give me an example of such a thing if using slurs is insufficient.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2017, 09:04:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 09:03:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2017, 08:25:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2017, 02:48:22 AM
If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.
And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.
I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when. This creates a situation with undue leverage. Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes. In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.
Like I said earlier I think that non-enforcement likely should be regarded as implicit consent, which can be revoked. In that situation "everyone's a lawbreaker" isn't true, no one is a lawbreaker as long as they stop when the owners say stop. If your business depends on the use of material that is owned by someone else then you can always talk to them and make sure they're OK with what you're doing before you make huge commitments (if you don't your CRO should slap you, if you're a one man operation you can slap yourself).
Telling someone to stop streaming their games is one thing. Taking down the content that has been created long time ago with an implicit consent at the time is a whole other ball game. If the concept of implicit consent applies, then it can't be withdrawn retroactively.
I support implicit consent. If there actually has been implicit consent then how could it be withdrawn retroactively?
To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?
A more general comment: I know that millenials have an unlimited sense of entitlement, but I don't see an obvious reason for grown-ups to play along. If I want to use someone else's property and I can't rely on implicit consent (because what I want to do is too important) then I talk to them about what I want to do and ask their permission. Do people ever talk these days? If you're in business act like a businessman.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
If you're in business act like a businessman.
Carry a briefcase, smoke and keep a mistress on the side?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 14, 2017, 04:05:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
If you're in business act like a businessman.
Carry a briefcase, smoke and keep a mistress on the side?
At least I got a gray flannel suit. :)
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2017, 05:21:41 PM
But you're talking about forgiveness from God. God gets to set all those prerequisites. He also gets to take vengeance and do other things people don't get to do.
God handed the keys, to bind and to loose, to his Church (if you are Catholic).
As stated:
Quote1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.
[Emphasis]
He already set them: to be forgiven your sins, you have to do the whole confession-penance thing (this is one of the things Protestants don't agree with).
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?
The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 08:06:29 AM
The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.
How is that retroactive? They are telling you that you cannot use their copyrighted material moving forward, not that you couldn't use it in the past.
Maybe retroactive mans something different in accountant than it means in English?
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 08:06:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?
The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.
How? Explain it like you would to a small child, or a golden retriever.
Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? :hmm:
Non-enforcement of your IP is a surefire way to lose your right to enforce it later - at least in Spanish IP law. But I believe most streamers do actually sign licensing contracts - just free ones. I have seen it done for people streaming non-videogame content, at least. These contracts contain pretty wide-ranging stipulations for the removal of the license.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 08:06:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?
The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.
If it was retroactive they'd demand compensation for past use.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 14, 2017, 09:11:06 AM
Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? :hmm:
Crazy like a fox.
Having come across this article (https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/14/16309430/pewdiepie-campo-santo-strike) I'm a little more concerned with how things are balanced.
The DCMA takedown request was issued and youtube complied. So far so good. However, youtube policy is such that if this happens twice more then Kjellberg's channel and everything on it will be taken down and he'll essentially be banned from youtube.
So essentially any three companies (or one company subject to three or more videos) can essentially permanently shut down a streamer seemingly at will. That does seem a bit unbalanced to me. Kjellberg does make a decent point, IMO:
Quote from: KjellbergWhether you like me or Mr. Vanaman, these laws are created for people to take down content and whenever there's power to do so, it's going to be abused. Especially when the reason to take down the content has nothing to do with copyright.
It'll be interesting to see where this goes as this has the potential to have fairly wide repercussions for streaming. It may drive some business to Twitch as well.
I don't get the blurb. Where is the abuse? Also, makes sense if you want to not have your content associated with someone you think can be damaging to your brand.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2017, 05:40:26 PM
I don't get the blurb. Where is the abuse? Also, makes sense if you want to not have your content associated with someone you think can be damaging to your brand.
That if you don't like them you for whatever reason you can potentially get their entire business shut down (which on the face of it seems potentially abusive to me), rather than simply stopping them from using your material specifically (which I think is completely reasonable).
Though that said - and playing off something the Brain said earlier - if you have substantial business interests in playthroughs, maybe moving forward it would behoove you to get some sort of agreement with the content owners that in the case of a disagreement you'll take down the content voluntarily without them resorting to a DCMA or whatever.
It'll be interesting to see where the industry settles after this.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 08:40:25 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 08:06:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2017, 03:51:37 AM
To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?
The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.
How? Explain it like you would to a small child, or a golden retriever.
You'll understand when you grow up.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:14:05 PM
You'll understand when you grow up.
I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2017, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:14:05 PM
You'll understand when you grow up.
I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?
Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video. To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".
I guess the disagreement is that I view retroactive as to the time of content creation, whereas you view it as to the time of content viewing. The problem that I see with your interpretation, if I got it right, is that in a sense you never own the content that you create, even if you originally had the permissions to create it. Your content is always leased from the publisher, who can always terminate the lease for any reason and with no recourse on your part.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 14, 2017, 09:11:06 AM
Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? :hmm:
I give history lessons to cats. Of course, those cats an not dogs, and cats need to know about the emperor Galba. The cat is now well versed in the demarcation problem.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2017, 06:24:49 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 14, 2017, 09:11:06 AM
Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? :hmm:
I give history lessons to cats. Of course, those cats an not dogs, and cats need to know about the emperor Galba. The cat is now well versed in the demarcation problem.
Mewicus
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2017, 06:13:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2017, 05:40:26 PM
I don't get the blurb. Where is the abuse? Also, makes sense if you want to not have your content associated with someone you think can be damaging to your brand.
That if you don't like them you for whatever reason you can potentially get their entire business shut down (which on the face of it seems potentially abusive to me), rather than simply stopping them from using your material specifically (which I think is completely reasonable).
Though that said - and playing off something the Brain said earlier - if you have substantial business interests in playthroughs, maybe moving forward it would behoove you to get some sort of agreement with the content owners that in the case of a disagreement you'll take down the content voluntarily without them resorting to a DCMA or whatever.
It'll be interesting to see where the industry settles after this.
Oh is the blurb about the YouTube policy? I agree that's a different issue.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video. To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".
I guess the disagreement is that I view retroactive as to the time of content creation, whereas you view it as to the time of content viewing. The problem that I see with your interpretation, if I got it right, is that in a sense you never own the content that you create, even if you originally had the permissions to create it. Your content is always leased from the publisher, who can always terminate the lease for any reason and with no recourse on your part.
The authors don't need anyone's permission to make the video, and the video was made. It still exists - there was no retroactive measure to go back in time and undo the making of it.
It is the further broadcast of the video that is being banned. That's not retroactive at all. All previous viewings of it still happened.
And, yes, bar fair use and contractual agreements, all use of copyrighted material is always at the discretion of the copyright holder. That's what copyright means.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2017, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:14:05 PM
You'll understand when you grow up.
I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?
Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video. To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".
I don't see it. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2017, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2017, 06:14:05 PM
You'll understand when you grow up.
I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?
Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video. To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".
Uhhh, no. No. No, that is not it at all.
The video is a thing, it exists, and it is, every day, creating value for the person who put it up, and part of that value is derived from the IP of the copyright holder.
They may have given permission to create the video, and they have given permission to allow people to watch the video, but that permission is completely at THEIR discretion.
They can withdraw it at any time they feel that it is no longer in their interests to allow it to continue, and at that point continuing to generate income at their (perceived) expense is a violation of their copyright.
This seems very simple to me.
If you get your way, then the IP owners will have no choice but to deny the use of their IP across the board.
Demanding that they either ALWAYS or NEVER grant that exclusion is not going to end with the ALWAYS choice.
Agree Berkut. It is like if you take an at will job. You quit your job, you incur expenses to relocate to the city in which the job is located, and then once you do so, they revoke the job offer. It is their right to do so, and you have no recourse against them.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 15, 2017, 09:24:05 AM
Agree Berkut. It is like if you take an at will job. You quit your job, you incur expenses to relocate to the city in which the job is located, and then once you do so, they revoke the job offer. It is their right to do so, and you have no recourse against them.
:lmfao: Except that it is not like that at all, Marti.