2:20 unpopular opinion, but tbh he looks perfectly fine wearing a mario costume. probably wouldn’t win any cosplay contests, but it looks good enough to go trick or treating in.
You’d be surprised how many people who Hate-Follow him only post that photo and nothing else. Like saying “Ha! Here’s this photo of you having fun! Total owned you good & proved your point’s a farce!”
Being a latecomer to Bob I was genuinely mystified by this. I think it is a lovely cosplay by a genuine geek. How in the name of the Immortal Miyamoto is that considerd a gotcha...?
@@TheFreshcorn1 How, in their "minds", does that work? What are they seeing when they look at that photo? It's like that video of AOC dancing when she was in high school got out and for some reason they thought that was a "gotcha" - and while a part of me is curious what those seething balls of impotent sub-mediocrity found so objectionable in a cute girl happily dancing even if that girl later became a congresswoman, I have a feeling that the answer wouldn't make me happy or be especially revelatory.
Tyler Freshcorn there’s also about a couple of dozen people who for years now give a thumbs down to every single Bob-starring video on the Escapist. These people are obsessed..
Fun modern take on this whole thing: Branches of the United States military have been creating "gaming" branches with the express purpose of going to where the kiddies are, playing video games with them on a competitive level, and using that as a recruiting tactic. Yes, the US Army, Navy, and Air Force all have Twitch channels. However, because this is the internet, people have used their chat to ask about uncomfortable practices of these various branches, and they did what all Twitch streamers do; ie block and remove offending comments. (I don't remember if it was a lawyer or who did this next part) It was then brought up that since they are a government extension that, while anyone else can remove comments, if they do that amounts to censorship, and they were forced to leave those offending comments up in the future. (And I also don't remember if it stuck or what the fall out was) Side note, the Marines refused to participate in this practice, stating that the horrors or war were not something they wanted associated with gaming.
People should learn that not every issue has exactly two sides, where one is good and the other bad. Sometimes there are multiple sides and they are dumb, dumb, dumb and dumb, respectively.
this is another one of those rare episodes where i find myself disagreeing with bob. the chicks may not have been censored in the government sense of the word but they were definitely unjustly blacklisted from the industry for a very long time. i was never exactly a fan of their music, but the fact that they call that the bush administration in 2003 and are only making a comeback this year is more than just "unfortunate." and it's odd because bob specifically talks about how it's not useful to use the strict dictionary definition of words when talking about them in their colloquial context, because in the colloquial context of the word, the chicks were definitely censored by the country music industry. i do agree with the rest of this two-parter though.
The Dixie Chicks had the misfortune of being about 1.5 years too early. In the sense that until mid 2004 opposition to the Irak war was muted and or nonexistent. It only started to matter when one it became clear that Saddam was no threat and two the war was gonna be a lot more difficult than anticipated. And even then persons with a strong patriotic streak refused to consider the possibility that Bush junior had manipulated their patriotism to start a needless war. When your childhood education is based on a strong element of ego boosting with a not so subtle religious component suddenly accepting that someone could play you for a fool on exactly that is difficult to accept. This is actually one of the problems with Irak there was never any introspection about it. It was declared a mistake but no one was held accountable so end result nothing happened. Even incidents like Abu Ghraib didnt change much since a large portion of the public fully agreed with what was done still reeling from the shock of 9/11.
I love the bit where you showed your own Halloween picture, because I’ve seen SO MANY PEOPLE try to use that, as Bob says, as a big “gotcha”, as if this was something he was trying to hide, but isn’t.
Well in my opinion, the truth might be somewhere in the middle, but it's usually what you perceive as the middle. Furthermore, what you might perceive as the truth might not be what everybody else perceives.
As a linguist, I have a problem with a couple things here... 1) a "dork" does refer to a penis, specifically a whale's penis; if you have an old enough dictionary (as I have just double-checked to make sure I'm not telling tales out of school) the word "dork" is defined as such. 2) While I agree that GTA banning and Dixie Chicks "cancelling" is not censorship, I disagree that the government is the only one that can censor. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically protects against government censorship but there are other types of censorship including self-censorship that do not include government intervention.
I could be wrong, but I thought "cancel culture" originally referred (as "call-out culture") to the way some fanfic communities suffered from recurring waves of moral panic, where relative nobodies convinced other relative nobodies to pile on the "wrong" relative nobody.
I've always loved Moviebob's COMPUTER SLOWED DOWN DEEP VOICED PRONOUNCEMENT MOMENTS. One from She Ra episode probably my favorite Though of course, chipmunk sped up moments are fun to. Sadly, because this the internet, I feel the need to clarify that I am not being sarcastic. Without ability to use vocal inflections, I confess to being a little paranoid that this post could appear to be some sort of snotty dig.
a timeless discussion of what censorship is and or isn't that we are always pretty much going to need in a country that is drunk on freedom constantly forgetting that freedom isn't free
2:50 actually we didn't make free speech the first thing in the constitution. It wasn't even in the constitution originally. We had to add it in later. Hence why it's called the first "Amendment".
The entire bill of rights was intended from the beginning to be part of the Constitution, hence why it was added at the same time, when it was added the concept of an amendment had a different meaning.
4:28 I am not a proponent of cancel culture, and I think that even with the best of intentions (which is rarely the cause), it does more harm than good. But, it does "exist" right? As in, there are people who organize a boycott and smear campaign of a particular person over a particular thing and do their best to have them largely removed (or disenfranchised) in the public sphere. James Gunn was "cancelled", and thankfully came back from it. Is the issue with the word "culture", since it's less a culture, and more just a rallying online hate-mob? Is it the word "cancel", like how Natalie Wynn did an amazing piece about how cancelling is literally identical to "trashing" which is basically informal slander, and exclusion? Or, have I totally misunderstood what cancel culture is? Is there some meaning to the term that I am missing, which defines it out of existence?
I work at an Aussie Target and I remember the GTA thing going down! It was specifically as a result of the PS4 and Xbox One releases that added the first-person perspective for your sex worker murder sprees, though the older-gen versions were also pulled from the shelves. A few years after, Target had stopped carrying any R-rated games entirely, I think the last one was like Evil Within 2 maybe? No more R-rated games after that, which meant SOME years missing out on stuff like Call of Duty - they usually get MA15+ but I think specifically CoD WWII had threats of rape against a female story character which bumped it up to R18+? Australia has two restricted age ratings: MA15+ and an R18+, and really the thing that gets you over that line into R territory is sexual content (especially sexual violence) and receiving in-game benefits/points/incentives for real world crime or drugs. The drugs bit is why Fallout 3 uses "Stims" instead of "Morphine" for healing items, as Morphine is a real world drug and healing items benefit the player. Oddly, some stuff that gets adult ratings other parts of the world gets an MA15+ rating here! Of course if any of the people signing the petition (mostly mothers) actually checked the rating of the game they were buying their 12-year-old, they'd realise how inappropriate GTA5 was! As to the counter-petitions we received, I distinctly remember those targeting the 50 Shades book series - but since mothers are our primary customer base, they got to stay.
Frank Miller, Writer of legitimately good and genre-defining comics like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns and Sin City, and also author or vomit-inducing dreck like Holy Terror and Batman: the Dark Knight Strikes Again. He also wrote the scripts for Robocop 2 & 3. Make of that what you will.
The thing I've never understood about this particular outrage is that as far as I'm aware you're never required or encouraged to harm a prostitute in any of the gta games. You can kill anyone in the open world and steal their money. The prostitute-killing thing was just something that some edgelords realised was possible and popularised as a meme. Would the protesters prefer that prostitutes were the sole inhabitants of the open world who were immune to murder and robbery? Don't really see how that would be doing them any favours.
Re: the whole "Kill The Hookers thing" at the end there - the game doesn't encourage it, doesn't incentivise it, if the sex workers in the game were, ahem, untouchable, they'd be the only people in the game for whom that would be true. If you *really* wanted to get GTA:V cancelled, I'd probably have gone after the graphic, extended, interactive torture scene that you couldn't skip initially.
Bonus for doing it, no penalty for doing it, no reward for not doing it. The game might not demand you do it but definitely cheers you on if you decide to do it. That's true for both prostitute murder and the torture scene.
@@TheEvilCheesecake Bullshit. There is zero mechanical reason to kill prostitutes over any other civilian in the game, the penalty is the police system and there is no reward for killing anyone outside measly small cash anyone in the game drops. This is no different then claiming because the series has killable black civilians, it promotes racial murder. And while the game allows killing them, it allows this because everyone is killable in the game outside story characters. The only way to truly solve all minority groups being mistreated is to make white middle class men the only civilians in the game, and thus any solution is fucking stupid. The only civilian type the series has ever encouraged killing over others was drug dealers in San Andreas because they dropped drastically more cash than other NPCs.
@@TheEvilCheesecake The torture scene is an integral part of the storyline (for better or worse). Sex worker assault is entirely up to the player to "indulge" in. Prostitutes are no different to any other NPC otherwise, excepting their unique interactions. The "original" outcry (I don't recall how far back it goes, could you solicit in the top-down games?) was regarding the idea that you could purchase the services of a sex worker then kill them to get your money back, but the money they dropped was randomly generated in exactly the same way as murdering anyone else, so what I'm getting at is that there's no incentive in the game to murder prostitutes *in particular*, over any other civvy.
A game doesn't incentive you to open treasure chests, or steal valuables, outside of the reward for said valuables. I have not played grand theft auto 5, but in the previous games you could have sex with a prostitute to regain health then kill them to get back the money you spent. Maybe you are later in the game where that is no longer important, but it is still there. To say there is NO incentive is to fundamentally misunderstand how games work.
@@anthonyrobles4127 The gavel has fallen and you have won your case by a landslide. You have proven the justice of our culture. The cake is real and it is yours. Enjoy :}
So is the removal of that episode of Community from streaming platforms censorship? You know I have problems with restricting use of the term to government actions, when the market weilds such power in that arena, and we're talking, no bones, about suppression and a clear overlap. Sure I can go pick up my Always Sunny dvds, my access to those isn't restricted, but viewed on Netflix where missing episodes may present a non sequitur, that qualifies as censorship to me because it alters my perception of chronology, or it might if I hadn't seen them a dozen times already. Point being, many agents can enact censorship. There's a middle between GTA and CIA
No, it's not censorship. And to be clear, I absolutely disagree with the decision. But it's Netflix's platform and therefore THEIR free speech rights are fundamentally supreme here, because choosing what content you host\publish on your own platform is a form of protected speech. They have a right to not air the episode, and we have the right to say they're assholes for yanking it. That's what free and open discourse in action looks like.
@@jasonblalock4429 While Netflix definitely doesn't, when singular platforms effectively control the entire narrative due to monopolistic dominance in an area, they effectively have as much power as a government to censor.
@@anthonyrobles4127 As I said, Netflix is this case is a bad example, as they lack a monopoly. Things like reddit, facebook or twitter have a significant dominance on online speech and are not on anyway comparable to little ol' Netflix in a sea of streaming sites.
LOL that anybody could conceive of that epic costume as a gotcha is the biggest joke of all. How did you ever wind up with such a useless gang of people trying to "own" you?
Sorry I do not agree on this case..... Shouting down a speaker is not only violating their right to free speech it is also a violation the rights of those wanting to hear the speaker. This applies in a limited fashion in an open public street scenario and is subject to other laws like noise levels, inconvenience to local residents and/or businesses etc..... But in a privet or public venue interrupting the scheduled speaker to silence them or to push your own narrative should never be allowed and IS a form of censorship.
Holy shit -- I wish some of the functionally far-right people who are essentially in Bob's wheelhouse posing as progressives who just happen to like anime and video games would to watch this video.
The big problem with the video is the same argument of "It's not censorship" can be literally levelled against most things. The Hays code wasn't censorship because it was outrage drummed up by the tabloids of the time against Hollywood films and celebrities which cause the idea they were going to face censorship to be put out there which in turn led to the industry deciding to police itself before anything actually happened. The Comics code was the same. There was no government mandate that the comics must be censored. The industry started a group to start censoring comics because of fear of the government. The Council of Trent was a bunch of church people who heard had a platform and pushed for the church and other places to censor renaissance art. The argument of "It's not censorship" therefore just ends up as to who can yell the loudest rather than any you know actual positions on the value of art, the fact it doesn't harm society or anything else it can just be an authoritarian push to unilaterally have art banned or censored on the grounds of "Well we got more people and were loudest and most obnoxious".
@@Dwavenhobble Well, yeah. I mean, by Bob's definition, the closest thing the US has to "true" censorship is that the government censors, by default, all foreign films that don't have a legal US distributor, but that is much further from the conventional meaning of censorship than what happened with the Chicks, because it has next to nothing to do with content. That being said, my comment was much more a tongue-in-cheek jab at, for example, Gaijin Goombah Media, and I'm not sure what the relevance of your reply is to that.
So I'll take my beating if I'm just stupid or oblivious, but I've played many hours of GTAV on both console and PC, and I've never hired a prostitute, or even seen someplace where I could clearly do so. It feels like something you must have to go looking for, from my perspective. Not a point for or against Bob's arguments here. It's like if somebody said we have to ban GTA for depictions of animal cruelty. Yeah, that's bad, but I never saw it in my 100 hours. I'm not saying it's not there, but it's weird that I never noticed.
"There's a distinct difference between technical definitions which are true in debate clubs and practical modern parlance which are true in life" I'm using this next time some idiot tries to argue that black people can't be racist.
HOLY SHIT! It feels like I've taken a trip to crazy town. I watched this video immediately after hearing this dude (in a different video) send his subs to harass and attempt to get other creators deplatformed for simply disagreeing with him. UN FUCKING REAL!!!
The concept of murdering sex-workers is completely abhorrent. But in _GTA_? Anyone can be killed/robbed/etc. The game is satire/parody of crime and excess of almost every type. None of it is acceptable in the real world, but in game, how would you even accomplish this without making a single class of unkillible NPCs running around? I can't think of a way to accomplish this without breaking immersion. Maybe have a short 'walking away' cut scene and then the NPC disappears? Still seems to go against the living world feel that the series goes for. Just remove the sex-workers completely if you don't want them killed in a game that lets you kill anyone. That's probably why you never see children NPCs during free-roam gameplay.
Cancel culture is real. I was very adjacent to people who were a part of it. Conversations of getting people “canceled” were the norm. Just because the right uses it as a defense against accountability doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And, being that it exists on both sides, these “cancel culture doesn’t exist” hot takes are detrimental to discourse. If the reaction to naming something is to say it doesn’t exist because one side abuses that naming, there is no point in naming ANY behavior. Because, then, we can’t say “she isn’t gaslighting you, she’s calling out your mental gymnastics.” You can’t watch people brag about someone’s cancellation and say there is no culture surrounding a behavior that clearly prefers destructive catharsis to actual accountability. I know this might seem unfair, because hot takes are your job, but your show is also called “the big picture” and you’re assigning a binary to a latent subtopic, while demanding the overall topic be handled and interpreted with nuance. It exists. Saying it doesn’t enables the right to wield it with even less accountability. Do better, please.
Agreed. Or at the very least, Bob is parsing things VERY finely if his argument is that cancel *culture* isn't a thing because there isn't a literal culture built up around cancellation. And even that is arguable. But really, when it comes down to it, there are simply a lot of people in this world who love seeing people getting wrecked, and "cancellation" is a new way for them to get their jollies from the misery of others.
Then by that logic it has always existed. You are simply describing an organized boycott. Of course if we look at the definitions of culture "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.:, I mean maybe you could pull customs for this, but it would be a very narrow group of disparate people, so hard to make that argument. What you are saying is people shouldn't have free speech if that speech forces employers to rethink their business practices. That is why the more educated say cancel culture doesn't exist. I'll call it organized boycotts because that is a real term that has a real meaning.
No, Bob falls for the usual neoliberal traps, including continued denial that cancel culture even exists. It comes from both left and right but is ultimately more harmful to the left, and denying it does nothing to combat it. There's lots of good leftist critique of this phenomenon. See Ben Burgis, Michael Brooks, Noam Chomsky, etc. Also Jon Ronson's prescient "So You've Been Publicly Shamed."
"people who enjoy media with violence or sexualisation tend to be more accepting of rape myths" - Anita Sarkeesian, (Women as Background decoration part 1) Just saying
@@anthonyrobles4127 I listed the episode. The studies in question are linked if you check her website and check the transcript. Also no she's not right she horribly misrepresents the paper whose own conclusion is more work needs to be done and their is no conclusive result. The method used too was extremely flawed rewarding snap judgements and deeming attempts to investigate more take a cautious approach as being the act of people who believe rape myths. You know rather than people who know about history and know how in the past allegations alone led to lynching of potentially innocent people.
@@SpoopySquid Isn't that mostly what cancel culture is though a smear campaign. James Gunn did make those tweets even if it's not who he is now. They were just pulled out to use against him.
'People's Republic of Overreactistan' is a great phrase!
2:20 unpopular opinion, but tbh he looks perfectly fine wearing a mario costume. probably wouldn’t win any cosplay contests, but it looks good enough to go trick or treating in.
I think that's really only that unpopular opinion among his Twitter hate-follows.
You’d be surprised how many people who Hate-Follow him only post that photo and nothing else.
Like saying “Ha! Here’s this photo of you having fun! Total owned you good & proved your point’s a farce!”
Being a latecomer to Bob I was genuinely mystified by this. I think it is a lovely cosplay by a genuine geek. How in the name of the Immortal Miyamoto is that considerd a gotcha...?
@@TheFreshcorn1 How, in their "minds", does that work? What are they seeing when they look at that photo?
It's like that video of AOC dancing when she was in high school got out and for some reason they thought that was a "gotcha" - and while a part of me is curious what those seething balls of impotent sub-mediocrity found so objectionable in a cute girl happily dancing even if that girl later became a congresswoman, I have a feeling that the answer wouldn't make me happy or be especially revelatory.
Tyler Freshcorn there’s also about a couple of dozen people who for years now give a thumbs down to every single Bob-starring video on the Escapist. These people are obsessed..
Fun modern take on this whole thing: Branches of the United States military have been creating "gaming" branches with the express purpose of going to where the kiddies are, playing video games with them on a competitive level, and using that as a recruiting tactic. Yes, the US Army, Navy, and Air Force all have Twitch channels. However, because this is the internet, people have used their chat to ask about uncomfortable practices of these various branches, and they did what all Twitch streamers do; ie block and remove offending comments. (I don't remember if it was a lawyer or who did this next part) It was then brought up that since they are a government extension that, while anyone else can remove comments, if they do that amounts to censorship, and they were forced to leave those offending comments up in the future. (And I also don't remember if it stuck or what the fall out was)
Side note, the Marines refused to participate in this practice, stating that the horrors or war were not something they wanted associated with gaming.
Tbh I really love the Halloween picture. It's adorkable and people trying to "own" you with it have 0 taste.
Imagine thinking that telling Bob he's a giant dweeb would insult him...
@@TheEvilCheesecake that be like telling Razorfist that "long hair us for girls"
6 years later, and people are still exhaustedly asking, "Is it January yet?"
"Bah humbug, is it January yet" is definitely a mood here in 2020.
6:50 that Spongebob gag is a welcome moment of levity and makes me smile every time
People should learn that not every issue has exactly two sides, where one is good and the other bad. Sometimes there are multiple sides and they are dumb, dumb, dumb and dumb, respectively.
this is another one of those rare episodes where i find myself disagreeing with bob. the chicks may not have been censored in the government sense of the word but they were definitely unjustly blacklisted from the industry for a very long time. i was never exactly a fan of their music, but the fact that they call that the bush administration in 2003 and are only making a comeback this year is more than just "unfortunate." and it's odd because bob specifically talks about how it's not useful to use the strict dictionary definition of words when talking about them in their colloquial context, because in the colloquial context of the word, the chicks were definitely censored by the country music industry. i do agree with the rest of this two-parter though.
The Dixie Chicks had the misfortune of being about 1.5 years too early. In the sense that until mid 2004 opposition to the Irak war was muted and or nonexistent. It only started to matter when one it became clear that Saddam was no threat and two the war was gonna be a lot more difficult than anticipated. And even then persons with a strong patriotic streak refused to consider the possibility that Bush junior had manipulated their patriotism to start a needless war. When your childhood education is based on a strong element of ego boosting with a not so subtle religious component suddenly accepting that someone could play you for a fool on exactly that is difficult to accept. This is actually one of the problems with Irak there was never any introspection about it. It was declared a mistake but no one was held accountable so end result nothing happened. Even incidents like Abu Ghraib didnt change much since a large portion of the public fully agreed with what was done still reeling from the shock of 9/11.
I love the bit where you showed your own Halloween picture, because I’ve seen SO MANY PEOPLE try to use that, as Bob says, as a big “gotcha”, as if this was something he was trying to hide, but isn’t.
0:35 I need to get their album, I remember liking their songs.
I don't always agree with your opinions, but that was well said.
2:24 The weirdest thing about using it as a Gotcha is that it's not even a bad photo.
Great to point out that the abuse of sex workers is a serious, onoing issue, and worth talking about.
Wouldn't it be cool if your messages from nearly a decade ago didn't need to be repeated verbatim right now?
Well in my opinion, the truth might be somewhere in the middle, but it's usually what you perceive as the middle. Furthermore, what you might perceive as the truth might not be what everybody else perceives.
Honestly I needed this again. Dealing with alt-right bullshit is very tiresome. The notes here were pretty informative.
as a brit, hearing an american say "bloody hell" is doing weird fucking things to my brain
As a linguist, I have a problem with a couple things here... 1) a "dork" does refer to a penis, specifically a whale's penis; if you have an old enough dictionary (as I have just double-checked to make sure I'm not telling tales out of school) the word "dork" is defined as such.
2) While I agree that GTA banning and Dixie Chicks "cancelling" is not censorship, I disagree that the government is the only one that can censor. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically protects against government censorship but there are other types of censorship including self-censorship that do not include government intervention.
I could be wrong, but I thought "cancel culture" originally referred (as "call-out culture") to the way some fanfic communities suffered from recurring waves of moral panic, where relative nobodies convinced other relative nobodies to pile on the "wrong" relative nobody.
Their new album is pretty interesting to listen to. It's a breakup album I can listen to again and again.
I've always loved Moviebob's COMPUTER SLOWED DOWN DEEP VOICED PRONOUNCEMENT MOMENTS. One from She Ra episode probably my favorite
Though of course, chipmunk sped up moments are fun to.
Sadly, because this the internet, I feel the need to clarify that I am not being sarcastic. Without ability to use vocal inflections, I confess to being a little paranoid that this post could appear to be some sort of snotty dig.
Cool video!
Ah, nice to see some one that gets what censorship really is and now have a video that can explain it better then I can to point others to.
a timeless discussion of what censorship is and or isn't that we are always pretty much going to need in a country that is drunk on freedom constantly forgetting that freedom isn't free
2:50 actually we didn't make free speech the first thing in the constitution. It wasn't even in the constitution originally. We had to add it in later. Hence why it's called the first "Amendment".
The entire bill of rights was intended from the beginning to be part of the Constitution, hence why it was added at the same time, when it was added the concept of an amendment had a different meaning.
Typo on the 'Memo from the Present' at 4:28
"They also didn't get ' *cancled* ' "
I think it was meant to be "canceled"
It was, but then some tweets the first 'e' made 10 years ago were shared online and it got cancelled, too.
So Bob's memo was doubly wrong then.
4:28 I am not a proponent of cancel culture, and I think that even with the best of intentions (which is rarely the cause), it does more harm than good. But, it does "exist" right? As in, there are people who organize a boycott and smear campaign of a particular person over a particular thing and do their best to have them largely removed (or disenfranchised) in the public sphere.
James Gunn was "cancelled", and thankfully came back from it.
Is the issue with the word "culture", since it's less a culture, and more just a rallying online hate-mob? Is it the word "cancel", like how Natalie Wynn did an amazing piece about how cancelling is literally identical to "trashing" which is basically informal slander, and exclusion?
Or, have I totally misunderstood what cancel culture is? Is there some meaning to the term that I am missing, which defines it out of existence?
"Bah, humbug. Is it January yet?" indeed.
I work at an Aussie Target and I remember the GTA thing going down! It was specifically as a result of the PS4 and Xbox One releases that added the first-person perspective for your sex worker murder sprees, though the older-gen versions were also pulled from the shelves. A few years after, Target had stopped carrying any R-rated games entirely, I think the last one was like Evil Within 2 maybe? No more R-rated games after that, which meant SOME years missing out on stuff like Call of Duty - they usually get MA15+ but I think specifically CoD WWII had threats of rape against a female story character which bumped it up to R18+? Australia has two restricted age ratings: MA15+ and an R18+, and really the thing that gets you over that line into R territory is sexual content (especially sexual violence) and receiving in-game benefits/points/incentives for real world crime or drugs. The drugs bit is why Fallout 3 uses "Stims" instead of "Morphine" for healing items, as Morphine is a real world drug and healing items benefit the player. Oddly, some stuff that gets adult ratings other parts of the world gets an MA15+ rating here!
Of course if any of the people signing the petition (mostly mothers) actually checked the rating of the game they were buying their 12-year-old, they'd realise how inappropriate GTA5 was!
As to the counter-petitions we received, I distinctly remember those targeting the 50 Shades book series - but since mothers are our primary customer base, they got to stay.
the biggest thing that got me at the time was thinking "who the hell is going to target or kmart to buy video games?"
5:09 Who's this guy?
Frank Miller, Writer of legitimately good and genre-defining comics like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns and Sin City, and also author or vomit-inducing dreck like Holy Terror and Batman: the Dark Knight Strikes Again.
He also wrote the scripts for Robocop 2 & 3. Make of that what you will.
Worried that cuties is going to get censored Bob?.
As an Australian, target barely sells games anyway, though Kmart kinda does.
Kmart stopped selling games a couple of years back and Target only gets select new releases: am a Target employee
@@legendofhugh The more you know.
7:12 do people actually pay attention to change.org?
Maybe, maybe not.
The thing I've never understood about this particular outrage is that as far as I'm aware you're never required or encouraged to harm a prostitute in any of the gta games. You can kill anyone in the open world and steal their money. The prostitute-killing thing was just something that some edgelords realised was possible and popularised as a meme. Would the protesters prefer that prostitutes were the sole inhabitants of the open world who were immune to murder and robbery? Don't really see how that would be doing them any favours.
The side that holds more power getting more voice is not capitalism. It's an entrench power set trying to retain their power.
Re: the whole "Kill The Hookers thing" at the end there - the game doesn't encourage it, doesn't incentivise it, if the sex workers in the game were, ahem, untouchable, they'd be the only people in the game for whom that would be true.
If you *really* wanted to get GTA:V cancelled, I'd probably have gone after the graphic, extended, interactive torture scene that you couldn't skip initially.
That scene made me cry.
Bonus for doing it, no penalty for doing it, no reward for not doing it. The game might not demand you do it but definitely cheers you on if you decide to do it. That's true for both prostitute murder and the torture scene.
@@TheEvilCheesecake Bullshit. There is zero mechanical reason to kill prostitutes over any other civilian in the game, the penalty is the police system and there is no reward for killing anyone outside measly small cash anyone in the game drops. This is no different then claiming because the series has killable black civilians, it promotes racial murder.
And while the game allows killing them, it allows this because everyone is killable in the game outside story characters. The only way to truly solve all minority groups being mistreated is to make white middle class men the only civilians in the game, and thus any solution is fucking stupid.
The only civilian type the series has ever encouraged killing over others was drug dealers in San Andreas because they dropped drastically more cash than other NPCs.
@@TheEvilCheesecake The torture scene is an integral part of the storyline (for better or worse). Sex worker assault is entirely up to the player to "indulge" in. Prostitutes are no different to any other NPC otherwise, excepting their unique interactions.
The "original" outcry (I don't recall how far back it goes, could you solicit in the top-down games?) was regarding the idea that you could purchase the services of a sex worker then kill them to get your money back, but the money they dropped was randomly generated in exactly the same way as murdering anyone else, so what I'm getting at is that there's no incentive in the game to murder prostitutes *in particular*, over any other civvy.
A game doesn't incentive you to open treasure chests, or steal valuables, outside of the reward for said valuables.
I have not played grand theft auto 5, but in the previous games you could have sex with a prostitute to regain health then kill them to get back the money you spent. Maybe you are later in the game where that is no longer important, but it is still there. To say there is NO incentive is to fundamentally misunderstand how games work.
A noble gesture, but "The Chicks" has gotta be one of the worst band names ever.
Other stupid band names: The Clash. The Who. The Beatles. etc.
@@anthonyrobles4127 The gavel has fallen and you have won your case by a landslide. You have proven the justice of our culture. The cake is real and it is yours. Enjoy :}
Almost as bad as Lady Antebellum rebranding as Lady A
@Anthony Robles
No they're not.
dayzgone they then sued the performer who was already using the name for like 20 years.
So is the removal of that episode of Community from streaming platforms censorship? You know I have problems with restricting use of the term to government actions, when the market weilds such power in that arena, and we're talking, no bones, about suppression and a clear overlap. Sure I can go pick up my Always Sunny dvds, my access to those isn't restricted, but viewed on Netflix where missing episodes may present a non sequitur, that qualifies as censorship to me because it alters my perception of chronology, or it might if I hadn't seen them a dozen times already. Point being, many agents can enact censorship. There's a middle between GTA and CIA
No, it's not censorship. And to be clear, I absolutely disagree with the decision. But it's Netflix's platform and therefore THEIR free speech rights are fundamentally supreme here, because choosing what content you host\publish on your own platform is a form of protected speech. They have a right to not air the episode, and we have the right to say they're assholes for yanking it. That's what free and open discourse in action looks like.
@@jasonblalock4429 While Netflix definitely doesn't, when singular platforms effectively control the entire narrative due to monopolistic dominance in an area, they effectively have as much power as a government to censor.
@@fearedjames You know that DVDs & Blu-Rays of Community exist, right? That means that Netflix DOESN'T HAVE A MONOPOLY on how you watch Community.
@@anthonyrobles4127 As I said, Netflix is this case is a bad example, as they lack a monopoly.
Things like reddit, facebook or twitter have a significant dominance on online speech and are not on anyway comparable to little ol' Netflix in a sea of streaming sites.
@@anthonyrobles4127 If they were unaware dvds exist (which I quite doubt they were ) the inference was clear in my initial comment
LOL that anybody could conceive of that epic costume as a gotcha is the biggest joke of all. How did you ever wind up with such a useless gang of people trying to "own" you?
Sorry I do not agree on this case..... Shouting down a speaker is not only violating their right to free speech it is also a violation the rights of those wanting to hear the speaker. This applies in a limited fashion in an open public street scenario and is subject to other laws like noise levels, inconvenience to local residents and/or businesses etc..... But in a privet or public venue interrupting the scheduled speaker to silence them or to push your own narrative should never be allowed and IS a form of censorship.
Holy shit -- I wish some of the functionally far-right people who are essentially in Bob's wheelhouse posing as progressives who just happen to like anime and video games would to watch this video.
The big problem with the video is the same argument of "It's not censorship" can be literally levelled against most things.
The Hays code wasn't censorship because it was outrage drummed up by the tabloids of the time against Hollywood films and celebrities which cause the idea they were going to face censorship to be put out there which in turn led to the industry deciding to police itself before anything actually happened.
The Comics code was the same. There was no government mandate that the comics must be censored. The industry started a group to start censoring comics because of fear of the government.
The Council of Trent was a bunch of church people who heard had a platform and pushed for the church and other places to censor renaissance art.
The argument of "It's not censorship" therefore just ends up as to who can yell the loudest rather than any you know actual positions on the value of art, the fact it doesn't harm society or anything else it can just be an authoritarian push to unilaterally have art banned or censored on the grounds of "Well we got more people and were loudest and most obnoxious".
@@Dwavenhobble Well, yeah. I mean, by Bob's definition, the closest thing the US has to "true" censorship is that the government censors, by default, all foreign films that don't have a legal US distributor, but that is much further from the conventional meaning of censorship than what happened with the Chicks, because it has next to nothing to do with content.
That being said, my comment was much more a tongue-in-cheek jab at, for example, Gaijin Goombah Media, and I'm not sure what the relevance of your reply is to that.
You gonna retract that statement of yours regarding CUTIES?
I mean, it is targeted harrassment.
Why?
So I'll take my beating if I'm just stupid or oblivious, but I've played many hours of GTAV on both console and PC, and I've never hired a prostitute, or even seen someplace where I could clearly do so.
It feels like something you must have to go looking for, from my perspective.
Not a point for or against Bob's arguments here.
It's like if somebody said we have to ban GTA for depictions of animal cruelty. Yeah, that's bad, but I never saw it in my 100 hours.
I'm not saying it's not there, but it's weird that I never noticed.
"There's a distinct difference between technical definitions which are true in debate clubs and practical modern parlance which are true in life"
I'm using this next time some idiot tries to argue that black people can't be racist.
HOLY SHIT! It feels like I've taken a trip to crazy town. I watched this video immediately after hearing this dude (in a different video) send his subs to harass and attempt to get other creators deplatformed for simply disagreeing with him. UN FUCKING REAL!!!
The Dixie Chicks were right (and always the Dixie)
You know they changed their names themselves right? If you do like them is seems you are not respecting them.
@@SilortheBlade I like and respect them but I feel it's the weight of society that inspired them to change the name. Either way, they're still good.
💙
The concept of murdering sex-workers is completely abhorrent. But in _GTA_? Anyone can be killed/robbed/etc. The game is satire/parody of crime and excess of almost every type. None of it is acceptable in the real world, but in game, how would you even accomplish this without making a single class of unkillible NPCs running around? I can't think of a way to accomplish this without breaking immersion. Maybe have a short 'walking away' cut scene and then the NPC disappears? Still seems to go against the living world feel that the series goes for.
Just remove the sex-workers completely if you don't want them killed in a game that lets you kill anyone. That's probably why you never see children NPCs during free-roam gameplay.
GTAV stopped being relevant?
Cancel culture is real. I was very adjacent to people who were a part of it. Conversations of getting people “canceled” were the norm.
Just because the right uses it as a defense against accountability doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And, being that it exists on both sides, these “cancel culture doesn’t exist” hot takes are detrimental to discourse.
If the reaction to naming something is to say it doesn’t exist because one side abuses that naming, there is no point in naming ANY behavior. Because, then, we can’t say “she isn’t gaslighting you, she’s calling out your mental gymnastics.”
You can’t watch people brag about someone’s cancellation and say there is no culture surrounding a behavior that clearly prefers destructive catharsis to actual accountability.
I know this might seem unfair, because hot takes are your job, but your show is also called “the big picture” and you’re assigning a binary to a latent subtopic, while demanding the overall topic be handled and interpreted with nuance.
It exists.
Saying it doesn’t enables the right to wield it with even less accountability.
Do better, please.
Agreed. Or at the very least, Bob is parsing things VERY finely if his argument is that cancel *culture* isn't a thing because there isn't a literal culture built up around cancellation. And even that is arguable. But really, when it comes down to it, there are simply a lot of people in this world who love seeing people getting wrecked, and "cancellation" is a new way for them to get their jollies from the misery of others.
No it's not. It's just something that you people have invented as new boogie man to be outraged over.
Then by that logic it has always existed. You are simply describing an organized boycott. Of course if we look at the definitions of culture "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.:, I mean maybe you could pull customs for this, but it would be a very narrow group of disparate people, so hard to make that argument.
What you are saying is people shouldn't have free speech if that speech forces employers to rethink their business practices. That is why the more educated say cancel culture doesn't exist. I'll call it organized boycotts because that is a real term that has a real meaning.
You are also assigning a binary when you believe or act as if there are actually only two sides to any cultural issue.
BUT CANCEL CULTURE!!!!!!!
Ah to go back 6 years when cancel culture wasn't a thing now it's everywhere, you tried to warn people Bob but it didn't work unfortunately
No, Bob falls for the usual neoliberal traps, including continued denial that cancel culture even exists. It comes from both left and right but is ultimately more harmful to the left, and denying it does nothing to combat it. There's lots of good leftist critique of this phenomenon. See Ben Burgis, Michael Brooks, Noam Chomsky, etc. Also Jon Ronson's prescient "So You've Been Publicly Shamed."
last
"people who enjoy media with violence or sexualisation tend to be more accepting of rape myths" - Anita Sarkeesian, (Women as Background decoration part 1)
Just saying
Is she wrong? Is she right? Where are the studies & what do the studies say?
@@anthonyrobles4127 this guy can't shut up about Anita Sarkeesian. Must have a crush on her.
Tell that to boomer right wing reactionaries.
@@anthonyrobles4127
I listed the episode.
The studies in question are linked if you check her website and check the transcript.
Also no she's not right she horribly misrepresents the paper whose own conclusion is more work needs to be done and their is no conclusive result. The method used too was extremely flawed rewarding snap judgements and deeming attempts to investigate more take a cautious approach as being the act of people who believe rape myths. You know rather than people who know about history and know how in the past allegations alone led to lynching of potentially innocent people.
@@davidv4018 Oh look it's the Sarkeesian defence force lol
I am definitely mad at Capitalism.
not only is this guy a consoomer, he's also a groomer apologist.
So Cancel culture isn't a real thing hu?
What happened to James Gunn then.........
That wasn't "cancel culture", that was a deliberate smear campaign organised by a prominent far-right grifter
@@SpoopySquid Isn't that mostly what cancel culture is though a smear campaign. James Gunn did make those tweets even if it's not who he is now. They were just pulled out to use against him.
Are you a troll or an idiot?
@@SpoopySquid Excatly. All because James Gunn isn't pro-Trump.
@@Dwavenhobble So cancel culture is a boycott campaign? Well which of those two terms has a clear meaning?