Amentep

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories. They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be. There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak. One of the things that I have with criticism in general is that often times what crictis see as a tacit intentional omision is often only a projection of their own assumption that it should exist there in the first place (or a projection of their own feeling about the work on actors in the work for that type of media). This may just be me that feels that way; I think in terms of criticism we always have to take it for what it ultimately is - one person's opinion. I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't. They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made. And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are).

It's been updated. http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game (which, I guess, means Mirror's Edge is a critique on violence since I seem to recall most complaints about that game was all the gameplay but combat was fun).

This does seem to be a slam against someone they don't like. The difference between the TYT anchor laughing and running out of a room and the other host is apparently she "gets paid more". So I guess its okay to act unprofessional* provided you're not getting paid a lot. Furries as a subculture don't have a large identity penetration into the mainstream AFAIK so I'd imagine the average person probably hasn't heard of them. *If you think having any emotional reaction to a story is unprofessional. That said, I actually think the other anchors may have set her up - one specifically prompting "what are furries" and then the other whispering something to her. Seems a deliberate attempt to make her break up on camera.

^I admit that I have a problem with how Orson Scott Card was run off of jobs. Sure I disagreed with his opinions, but that doesn't mean I think the man should be forced out of his career unless he "converts" to the "approved" opinions.

I really agree here. There is a movement to make the creative effort about the creator irregardless of the creation. Now I have no interest in Hatred (or most shooters in general) but if the game company wants to make it fine. If the game company is proven to be racist facists, the consumer can decide if they want to patronize them or not. Most historical creators could never survive the standards applied to today's creators. Lovecraft was a racist, for crying out loud. He was also a product of his time and place, as are we all. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, illustrating her view of Voltaire's views in The Friends of Voltaire

Since he says he's "40", the poster himself hasn't experienced at leaest one of the era he's referencing. It'd mean he was born in the 1970s; McCarthyism and the blacklisting of suspected communists was in the mid-1950s and would have been experienced by his parents and/or grandparents. He goes on and mentions freedom from the religious right, which is vague enough to be a reference to the big religon in school/school prayer decisions that were made in the early 60s (Engel v Vitale, 1962 and the Abington School District v Schimpp, 1963) which he wouldn't have been around for or the fights over rap music (like the furor over Ice T's "Cop Killer") or even video games (Jack Thompson's crusade, though, wasn't really "religious") which he would have been around for.

^I'd argue that Sci-Fi is harder to write (as to not fall into "science fantasy" one must be up on current science theories and able to make good extrapolations). I'd also imagine editors find fantasy of all types easier to deal with because not understanding some scientific theory isn't going to get their publishing house ridiculed by scientists on the internet with fantasy but will with sci-fi.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm under the impression that Hatred isn't finished, hasn't been released (or else why would it be up for voting on Greenlight?) so how would you know that Hatred is none of those things you list? BTW, Lolita was turned down by 6 major US publishers for content concerns before Nobokov turned to France where the publisher ended up being one that mostly did pornographic novels. France banned it a year after its publication after the UK customs started seizing shipments into the country of the book. It took 4 years for US and 5 for UK publication. The UK publication ended the political career of the publisher. So pardon me if I fail to see how "merit" somehow makes something censor/ban proof... You far too clever to make such a fatuous argument that Hatred may reach the intellectual and emotional heights of Lolita, its just a violent FPS....that's it Since that's not what I did, I don't see what your problem was. Point (A) we can't comment on what HATRED achieves because the game doesn't exist for us to mark its merit or lack of same. Point (B) even great works can end up not finding distribution. Lolita is by far not the only work to have a troubled publishing history because of its content. Point © it'd be a travesty for Lolita to be banned "because it was a great work" didn't stop it from being banned. It doesn't stop modern attempts to ban it. And this, ultimately is my point - while publishers (like Simon and Schuster with Nobokov or Steam with Hatred) are perfectly in their rights to decide that a creative work doesn't fit their publication profile, I start having a serious problem when consumer side activists start trying to dictate what should and shouldn't be distributed/available for me in any fashion. Because its a slippery slope. Its all fine and good while you're in power and banning the things you don't like, but what happens when you're not in power and people start banning the things you do like?

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm under the impression that Hatred isn't finished, hasn't been released (or else why would it be up for voting on Greenlight?) so how would you know that Hatred is none of those things you list? BTW, Lolita was turned down by 6 major US publishers for content concerns before Nobokov turned to France where the publisher ended up being one that mostly did pornographic novels. France banned it a year after its publication after the UK customs started seizing shipments into the country of the book. It took 4 years for US and 5 for UK publication. The UK publication ended the political career of the publisher. So pardon me if I fail to see how "merit" somehow makes something censor/ban proof...

Still seems dodgy; the original Brazilian site only seems to name a police officer. Typically you'd expect some other identifying details (when the arrest happened for example), the hospital involved (listed in the earliers report I can find as "City Hospital").

How that wouldn't also kill her I have no idea Reads like one of those email chain stories/urban legends. No name of any person involved, no name of the poison/toxic substance, nor the name the hospital. Only a city is stated. I call fake until further documentation can be provided.

Egads, there's so many factual inaccuracies in that "article". That'd be SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT by Dr. Frederick Wertham. It - and to a lesser degree PARADE OF PLEASURE by Geoffry Wagner - are the main literary sources for the anti-comics stance in public culture. However comics had come under fire in the 1930s, so it wasn't a new accusation and the Senate hearings were also a big player in the situation. This isn't true, yes superheroes had "hit" again by the mid-1950s. But the best sellers were still crime and horror comics. DC was doing well with war and sci-fi. Marvel scraped by on giant monsters with weird names. But besides appearing to be responsible companies guarding the youth of the day, another part of the reason why the CCA was formed by the companies it was formed by was the CCA was a timely piece of industry ballyhoop that allowed EC and Lev Gleason's competitors a free license to put them out of business in the middle of a "scare". The main companies behind the CCA - DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell - essentially wrote the rules so EC and Lev Gleason couldn't continue to make and sell their books. Note DC had been self-censoring since about 1940 with their "no-kill" policy. Diamond is a monopoly (one that the government has declined to pursue) but the real reason is the loss of comic distribution outside of the comic shop, meaning their market penetration when compared with other things is miniscule. Marvel was in bankruptcy when it gave Sony and Fox their sweetheart deals. They were in bankruptcy due to management at the time and a debacle with Marvel distributing their own comics (which is part of why Diamond is now a monopoly). Diamond does not set the price of books. Mattel never owned Marvel. Marvel bought a company called Toy Biz which then got control of Marvel, then the toy market collapsed and Toy Biz was reorgnized and sold off (to Mattel) while Marvel remained in the hands of its private owners.

Note "in order to remove things". To censor means that you expurgate it but deliver the final approved product to the end user. This is not what Target did nor is it the goal of the petition. Bans keep things from the end user. **** Wanted to comment on this from the other thread: There's an inherent problem with this, which is that from studies I've heard of the vast proportion of male prostitutes work in the male-male sex trade with much fewer actually doing male-female; given the current climate, I'd imagine giving players the ability to kill them will be seen as some sort of comment against homosexuality

Wasteland 2 (2014) - PC Dragon Age: Inquisition (2014) - PS4 Persona 4 Ulimax Arena (2014) - PS3 Persona Q (2014) - 3DS Ghost Stories (2014) - Boardgame

Yeah, its definately been an enjoyable show. I think not having to wait for Captain America: The Winter Soldier to hit has helped this season a lot.

More importantly I guessed who Skye and her dad was in October, so it was nice to be right (I usually am not on this kind of thing).

I haven't gotten any writing done in years. But that probably doesn't have much to do with Dragon Age: Inquisition. It did turn me into a newt though... (I got better).

I've been going to bed late regularly playing the game. Yikes!

Play with cats?

Agreed, nothing lasts forever. Fortunately Im not worried about forever. Im worried about the here and now that I live in and currently theres nobody that can take the US down. If we wait long enough, approximately 7.6 billion years, the sun will become a red giant and engulf the Earth. Hahahaha, suck it China. "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future."

I think, in some ways, the idea is to create such uncertainty that you have to go get your idea "vetted" by those who "speak" for the "proper" way to represent women so they can "approve" your take. Could be wrong, but the damned if you do/damned if you don't approach only works if there's a way to avoid damnation - ie some form of a seal of approval.

Yeah I've beat Crestwood Dragon now and I agree it was less of a fight than Hinterlands. Iron Bull and Sera were both still excited though.

California and Rain - sounds like Georgia and Snow.

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits? Women have been victims of society - are they off limits? The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits? The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits? If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites...

I took a few weeks off of the internet for that same reason. To be honest this whole situation is rather depressing.