We invited to the wedding?

Depends. Can you behave?

The second dude was being petty but your professor sounds rude herself. Getting upset over people leaving your class and calling them immature over it to their face? That's pretty rude of her as well. I sometimes give lectures at university and couldn't care less about people leaving or not showing up as long as they're quiet and non-disruptive about it. I didn't attend many of my classes when I got my Master's either.

Quote from: Flee on April 17, 2019, 03:18:34 PM

Dragonite.

>cool as shit
>best type
>can grow larger than a lighthouse
>godlike stats
>knows all the cool moves (Blizzard, Icebeam, Earthquake, Fireblast, Thunder, Stone Edge)
>HYPERBEAM
>delivers mail because he's actually useful
>can regenerate health
>literally only beatable when Pikachu cheats like the filthy mouse it is and zaps his antennae

10/10 best Pokémon

4x ice weakness and extra damage from stealth rocks
git fuckd

Dragonite will just flame or lightning the shit out of anything that could ice him.

And he can fly, what are some pointy rocks going to do to a dragon that's the size of a large building.



Literal rocket launcher hits don't even make my boy flinch.

Dragonite.

>cool as shit
>best type
>can grow larger than a lighthouse
>godlike stats
>knows all the cool moves (Blizzard, Icebeam, Earthquake, Fireblast, Thunder, Stone Edge)
>HYPERBEAM
>delivers mail because he's actually useful
>can regenerate health
>literally only beatable when Pikachu cheats like the filthy mouse it is and zaps his antennae

10/10 best Pokémon

YouTube

I like him I hope he's not too jank

I legit thought we were going to get the Joker from Batman, lol. What even is this dude.

Quote from: Flee on March 30, 2019, 04:18:28 PM

Quote from: Jono on March 30, 2019, 03:24:49 PM

Quote from: Flee on March 30, 2019, 12:44:00 PM

What exactly have they supposedly changed in the MCC? Sound is pretty bad and the exact same problems of poor connectivity and overall bullshit still exist just the same.

Correction: the Halo 2 remaster is the first one I've played that actually feels snappy and good. Got 23 kills in my first team slayer game there.

Join the Sep7agon squad for MCC

How?

By sending me and Boomdeyadah friend requests obviously

Eh, I don't see myself playing much more of this. I only renewed my Gold for one month to play with my brother last night. It was fun to get in some games with him but the state of the game just doesn't seem to be that great. Overall performance is pretty bad, the hit registration is kind of embarrassing for 2019, the amount of quitters / AFKers is insane, matches are rarely balanced (like, we were split-screening and ran into the same 4 man team of American tryhards repeatedly - all with twitch links in their name, identical tags and just overall toxic behavior). Let's hope they do better for the PC release.

Quote from: Flee on March 30, 2019, 12:44:00 PM

What exactly have they supposedly changed in the MCC? Sound is pretty bad and the exact same problems of poor connectivity and overall bullshit still exist just the same.

Correction: the Halo 2 remaster is the first one I've played that actually feels snappy and good. Got 23 kills in my first team slayer game there.

Join the Sep7agon squad for MCC

How?

CE MP absolutely sucks though.

You make it sound like its just a copyright law extension with means of stopping platforms benefiting from others works. But then why is everyone up in arms about it? If its too long and nuanced you dont have to go into it.

Basically, people are up in arms about this for two main reasons. One, there's definitely legitimate concerns and genuine criticism of the Directive, but two, it's been convoluted and exaggerated by an absolute shit ton of misinformation and bullshit being spread around. This copyright reform has been years in the making. Public consultation and shareholder talks started years before the first proposal was introduced back in 2016. These early versions of the law were a lot more extreme than the final one and resulted in a lot of opposition from experts (including myself - my own institution is on the open letter by academic institutions that voiced concerns) as well as from other activists. Unfortunately, online activists don't always care about nuance and facts. You don't get the average person riled up with a fair and balanced analysis of copyright law. Much more effective is presenting worst case scenarios as fact and making exaggerated speculative claims.

This then gets pushed by sites like Youtube who don't want to share their revenue with creators or risk liability and is picked up by influencers, vloggers, creators and such who couldn't even tell you what copyright is and haven't read a single word of the actual law, but are eager to jump on the bandwagon and convince even less informed people than themselves that the EU is going to ban memes, that everyone will have to pay a tax when they share links, that mandatory upload filters will have to approve everything you post on the internet, that small internet companies are all going to perish because they can't afford to pay millions for licenses and AI filters, that content creators and small artists are going to be blocked from uploading videos and songs, that it's the end of free speech online, and all sorts of bullshit like that. It doesn't matter that the proposed law has been changed several times to be less strict, dispell several concerns and include a bunch of new safeguards for users and platforms - once you've convinced the average internet user that the ominous sounding "article 13" means the end of memes and the free internet, there's next to nothing that'll change that first impression.

As I said, I definitely don't support every part of the Directive myself and think that there are valid concerns of abuse and the law being too vague on some points, but much of the outrage really boils down to most people just being uninformed and basing their views on what some memes, social media posts or youtube videos had to say about the whole thing. I'm convinced that many of the people who oppose the entire thing would have a very different opinion if someone were to walk them through the law and explain it in a more neutral and fair way than "EU MEME BAN".

This man is dropping some truth bombs. Actual Tory leadership in the UK? My goodness.

So it looks like a blanket solution to copyright infringement? Instead of pointing at the infringer they point at the platform, how is this a sane idea?

Its absolutely prime grounds for shady shit even if it doesnt affect everyday antics

Well, it only applies to certain online platforms and does nothing to diminish the liability of the infringers as well, so there's that. Definitely not supposed to be a blanket solution or anything. Also, the Directive consists of over 30 articles that talk about other aspects of copyright as well in order to better protect artists and copyright holders. Only 2 of them are controversial.

The idea behind it is pretty straightforward. Say you're an artist or content creator who makes videos, music, literature, animations, design, pictures, paintings or anything like it. It doesn't matter if you're a small independent artist on Soundcloud or Deviantart or a huge corporation or label putting out major shows, movies or pop songs - you own the rights to your creations. Imagine now that someone steals your video, song, animation or content and uploads it on Youtube themselves. I'm not talking about fair use like in a meme or review, but just blatant stealing and reuploading your content as their own. In this case, you're not going to be making any money off of it even though you deserve to be compensated for your work, and neither is the person who stole your content. So who does make money here? Youtube. Because the platform runs ads on just about every video and thereby makes (100% of the) revenue every time someone watches your content without any obligation or requirement to compensate you as well, even though it's making money off of your work. This is what the Directive aims to address by requiring platforms like Youtube to try and get a license with you to distribute part of the money they make from your content, and to work with you to stop unwanted infringements on their platform.

I personally don't agree with all of it but it's a lot more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.

Quote from: Flee on March 28, 2019, 12:32:38 PM

Quote from: MarKhan on March 28, 2019, 12:28:58 PM

I feel a deja vu

It was a surprisingly good stream. We had 50+ viewers just watching me go over the new Copyright Directive until Rapha and Vengeur started streaming. Good stuff.

No, I mean you did a simillar titled thread before, I think it was in september

Oh yeah, you're right. Well now it actually happened so I figured we'd do a re-run.

No they're not. Stop listening to people who couldn't even tell you what copyright is but are convinced this is the end of the internet because someone on Facebook said so.

Also, just to get back to the influencers that you said do not foster communities which might radicalize people, I spent 10 minutes looking through some of their videos. Among the top rated comments with dozens to hundreds of upvotes were gems like:

"Just shoot them" (in reference to transgender rights activists).
"Putin acts like a fucking leader, feminism is illegal in Russia".
"There's two places for this mental illness. jail or out of my country" (referring to transgenders).
"Legally recognizing feminism was one of the worst mistakes the US has ever made as a country".
"Asylum seekers are warriors and invaders. Let armed patrols take care of them."
"They do not deserve constitutional rights" (referring to Muslims in America).
"Not only is it evil to normalize pedophilia. But it’s actually the agenda of the progressive leftist machine!!"
"Those who let Muslims into the country are more responsible" (referring to the NZ shooting).
"Arm yourself and prepare, the end war for our land and people is coming".
"All non-Europeans must be evicted from our country".
"Was he wrong? No." (in response to a far right politician saying that "women must earn less than men because they're less intelligent" and doing the Hitler salute in parliament - someone who Sargon defended as bringing "facts").

There's thousands more of these popular comments and they get even worse on smaller but similar channels. They're incredibly common and take mere minutes to find. And I'm not even talking about some lonely fringe bad apples. I sorted by "top rated" and only quoted those that had a good amount of likes and positive responses. Hell, the current top post on the Peterson subreddit is a meta commentary on how the community has been taking a dangerous turn as a notable part has become more radical. "An astonishing number of the posts are related to race realism, white replacement, and strawmanning progressive positions. Many posts related to the NZ shooting deemphasize the dangers of right wing extremism and present radical Islam as a bigger problem, and some even claim the NZ attack was a false flag." There's people in that very thread literally talking about how they got into Peterson because of his self help and philosophical work only to leave the sub again because they felt it led them on to a much more radical right wing community and views.

I also picked a random video from Sargon's channel from the past two weeks that wasn't about Brexit. In the sidebar of recommended videos? Links to the official channel of Paul Joseph Watson - InfoWars host, Alex Jones' right hand and far right conspiracy theorist. Links to the personal channel of Tommy Robinson - founder and former leader of several hardline far right groups who showed up at a journalist's house in the middle of the night to intimidate him just weeks ago. Videos of Sargon interviewing Tommy. Channels such as "Trigger Happy Media", apparently dedicated to liberals and SJW's getting owned compilations, "Right Politics", Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro with plenty of links to Gab pages and all the much worse stuff you'll find there. It took me two clicks to get from Sargon to "Alltime Conspiracies", and just one more to get into the "beware the New World Order and rise up" part of youtube.

I'm open to hear what you think but I find it difficult to look at this stuff and still try to deny that this content really is a gateway to a much more radical and combative community that holds some abhorrent views and normalizes them to impressionable people. You don't have to shoot 50 people in order to hold extremist views, but even then there's a lot to go by. Elliott Rodger killing 6 people in 2014, far right incel leaving a manifesto filled with racist and sexist views. Dylan Roof killing 9 colored people in a church in 2015, self-proclaimed white supremacist and member of the alt-right. Bissonnett killing 6 praying Muslims in Canada 2017, far right extremist and hardcore Trump supporter known for his anti-Muslim and anti-feminist posts online. Fields driving into a crowd and injuring around 30 people (killing 1) in 2017, far right extremist part of the "Unite the Right" alt right crowd. Beierle shooting (but not all fatally) 6 women in 2018, far right incel with similar views to Rodger. Minassian killing 10 people in Toronto in 2018, again citing Rodger and anti-feminism as an inspiration.

These people aren't your typical ultra-nationalist skinheads wearing swastikas that you might think of when you hear "far right terrorism". They're almost all young, impressionable and very active online where their frustrations with their inability to get a relationship or succeed in life were fueled by a vocal community turning them against "the establishment" and society, feeding them misleading bullshit through these content creators, putting the blame everywhere but themselves, and ultimately radicalizing them after extensive normalization of racism, sexism and violence. This absolutely is dangerous and it's a real problem too. After leaders of the alt right admitting it themselves, I really don't see how anyone can still deny this.

Quote from: Flee on March 16, 2019, 12:35:56 PM

People are very right in looking for solutions to these complicated problems.

I disagree with the notion that anti-SJW crowd is a gateway toward extremism, especially when most of the people you listed have denounced Alex Jones, the alt-right, the great replacement, etc. Felix may have right-wing, possibly even alt-right, views but you have to dig through his "Following" list on twitter to see it; it doesn't reflect in his content. This seems like little more than thought-policing.

The shooter had stated that he specifically picked his rifle in order to violently escalate the gun debate. Does it really seem likely that he was radicalized by Pewdiepie, or that he wanted people to think he was radicalized by Pewdiepie? I doubt that he was genuinely a fan of Pewdiepie or Candace Owens, and when the media uses this as an opportunity to reignite their agendas against these people, it is just playing right into the killer's hands.

This is why we should stop giving exposure to killers and their motives. There's a discussion to be had about communities like 8chan, gun control, and mental health, but much of the "discussion" is just further polarizing people.

I disagree with most of that.

Who are you to say that these people are not genuinely looking for solutions when they bring up gun control, media influencers, radicalization and so on? I presented several ways in which these might have all played a role in this attack. I would never condone any harassment but let's not pretend that a small group (of students) confronting Clinton isn't anything more than just that. Don't forget what my post actually said: that I reject Batch his comment that people bringing up other (problematic) things are just ignoring the problem because they just want to push their own narrative. While that might be true for some people, I doubt it's a majority. Most are just calling out the problems where they see them and sometimes fingers do need to be pointed and some people do need to take some responsibility. We shouldn't avoid the difficult sides of this debate because it would be polarizing.

Denouncing "the alt right" when you share many of the same views, attack the same people and present a slightly watered down version of what the most notorious voices are saying doesn't mean much. The people I listed absolutely contribute to the radicalization and polarization of large groups of people, and they do it much more than people who, for example, simply call for further gun control after a massacre like this. I think it's disingenuous to pretend this doesn't happen when people like Bannon and Stormfront have explicitly commented on how useful of a recruitment technique it is. And you and I have some pretty different views on how the "fucking nigger", "death to all jews", Shapiro as a host, promoting a holocaust denier channel and all the other stuff somehow are not politics being reflected in his content. I personally have nothing against Pewdiepie and don't care about him either way, but I'm disappointed by how little he does to manage serious concerns.

I never said the shooter was radicalized by Pewdiepie. I said it's perfectly fair to have a discussion on how his influence might play a part in funneling people towards shitty and radical communities, and that we can definitely argue he should take some more responsibility for his actions and be more proactive in stopping bad stuff from festering among his followers. It's also a very strange choice of words when you say that the media seizes this as an "opportunity to reignite their agendas against these people", as if this is some random campaign against some people they just don't like rather than wholly justified responses against them actually doing shitty things and promoting very shitty views. Let's not pretend this is some unfounded smear campaign against an innocent epic gamer.

I'm well aware of the research on media contagion, but any discussion would be polarizing people. You can frame this in the nicest possible way and you'd still have millions of people go "how dare you use this for your political gains". I think the media's been pretty great about this as I've only seen one article drop his name, but we can't just ignore what led to this either. Your entire position seems kinda contradictory as you both admit that there's a discussion to be had but simultaneously appear to be dismiss any of it actually happening. We can both agree that there's going to be loud and shitty people in any discussion on any side, but that doesn't do anything to my rejection of Batch his position of "people bringing any of this up are just avoiding the problem" nor does it suggest how we can be more constructive about it (as you seem to just dismiss the media talking about it as "reigniting their agendas").