Stabbing for GTA4

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
I disagree.

They are neither a sign of cultural decline nor of a decline of Rome as civ in general, that's actually my point.

The question wasn't whether they are a sign of cultural decline, or even as Rome in general. The statement was they were associated with the decline of the Roman empire.

But that wasn't even the question I asked you, the answer to which has nothing to do with the above association.

Here it is again:

"You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?"

We may call gladcom decadent today, but that's a modern interpretation (and as such always debatable), nothing else.

Same with any "decadent", or any use of just about any word for that matter. The question isn't whether there is some absolute "decadent" that was observed by everyone at all times throughout history, it's whether you would consider them decadent. (Since I asked you the question.)

You buy slaves. You have the slaves kill each other for your amusement. That is "decadent" in my book. Not yours?

Gladcom was part of the Roman culture in general, so of course also part of those whose lifestyle is described as decadent. The point is that it is not described so because of gladcom.

It certainly is described so in part because of gladiatorial spectacles. I myself am describing Roman gladiatorial matches as decadent. You may disagree with that description, but it is definitely made.

You wouldn't consider someone having slaves kill each other for entertainment purposes a form a decadence?

Then you're broadening this so much that anything can support your view. "Roman in general went to pubs for wine often, and rich Romans had lots of wine too, those decadent bastards". Come on.

You seem to be under the impression that the only thing involved in gladiatorial matches was the (common) spectator? These were costly productions that were (as funeral services) put on to honor specific people. According to wiki... they were viewed as so important that laws were necessitated about how much could be spent on gladiator fights to keep citizens from bankrupting themselves. Bankrupting yourself to buy slaves to kill each other is absolutely decadent.

And you want to pretend gladiatorial matches are akin to buying a glass of wine? Come on...

[Wezil]

Sorry for the late response.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because the "issue" is utterly idiotic. And the Gore comparison is apt because the reason she and her hoard jumped on board to the labeling craze because she thought violent music had damaging effects on society.

The issue is real, your refusal to address it for five freaking pages is the idiotic part.

And again with Gore. *Sigh* Please find ONE SINGLE POST where I advocted "labeling". Just one. Good luck.

You want to be able to say Wezil = Tipper and the comparison just won't work Imran.

There is absolutely no proof that it is a "net negative" on society, just as Elvis wasn't a "net negative" on society for his sexual dancing and caused the Ed Sullivan show to only show him from the waste up.

"proof"? I agree. "Evidence" may be a different argument.

Perhaps Elvis was part of a continuum?

Besides, you were the one who brought up Gore first... you know the whole "social commentators" comment?

So "social commentor" to you means Tipper Gore (to the exlusion of all others)? Fine. I pointed out the comparison was not apt and why, and then you used the same comparison again. Again I pointed out it was not apt and why, and again you used the same comparison (rinse and repeat). No Imran, Tipper Gore is on your mind, not mine.

[Asher]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/wgtgameblog0301

GTA IV Diary, Day 5: The Rockstar Social Club

The two-dozen-hours of time I've spent with Rockstar's hit crime drama doesn't look like it will be nearly enough for me to make it into the Grand Theft Auto IV 100% Club. Anyone who finishes the game and achieves a 100 per cent rating by midnight on Monday will be granted entrance to this exclusive society and receive a boxed “Key to the City” for their efforts.

That's assuming you've registered online to become part of the new Rockstar Social Club.

Coinciding with the game's launch, this online community is dedicated to providing statistics, services, and contests related to the developer's titles, starting with GTA IV.

It only took a few seconds to link my PlayStation Network name and Xbox 360 gamertag (I've been playing the game on both platforms, and, for the record, haven't noticed the slightest bit of difference between the two) with a pair of Rockstar Social Club accounts, which has allowed me to check out my stats and achievements while away from the game and see how everyone else in the world is doing. I've found that I particularly enjoy turning on the Social Club's LCPD Blotter, which reports how many thousands of criminals have been arrested and cars stolen in Liberty City in the past 24 hours.

However, the best part of the Social Club might be the way in which it allows players to buy DRM-free MP3s of the 200-plus songs featured in GTA IV. Whenever you hear a track you like on the radio while driving in the game, just call up that handy phone I mentioned in a previous diary entry, dial ZIT-555-0100, and you'll receive a text message containing the track title and artist's name. What's more, the information will be sent to your Rockstar Social Club account, where you can preview and, if you like, purchase it—assuming you live in the United States. Unfortunately, the service isn't available outside America.

This bummed me out, especially after hearing on The Journey (my favourite GTA IV radio station) Jean Michel Jarre's 1977 classic “Oxygene Part 4”, a beautiful piece of proto-electronica which I had all but forgotten, and certainly never expected to hear in a video game.

Still, Rockstar states in the pages of the Social Club that the service will eventually be rolled out in other countries. I just hope I'm still playing the game when that happens.

Speaking of which, this will be the final entry in this player's diary—at least for a while. I suspect I'll be playing GTA IV for weeks to come, and I'll be sure to post any particularly interesting experiences I may have, but it's time for this game journalist to move on. As some commenters have already noted, Rockstar has received enough publicity from hacks like me to ensure beyond all doubt the unparalleled success of their new game.

Put another way, if by this point you still don't know whether Grand Theft Auto IV is your cup of tea, the only way to find out is to play it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Rome went Christian before it declined. Far from being decadent, it became mush less so.

Actually the decline of the Roman empire started at least a century or two before Constantine. The furthest extent of the empire was under Trajan, who ruled till 117AD. Constantine legalized Christianity in 313AD.

The official adoption of Christianity didn't exactly mean an end to Roman decadence either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We know you said "suppression of culture"... as a reference to what I had said, even though now you admit that I said "suppression of civilization". Thank you for again pointing out that you were incorrect.

Discussion is about culture, not the supression of civilization or progress. So pardon me for trying to drag the conversation back onto topic, or assuming that a post you had was even tangentially related to the topic at hand.

In fact you go between them, saying "supression of the civilization" and later in the post "As for our own culture".

I never said it prevented the people from rising up. I allowed that it could have been a factor.

And if its part of a myriad of factors, why mention it? Unless you believed it was more than just a mere factor, what is the point in claiming it may have been a factor in pacifying the people (and I don't think it was any more than a incredibly small factor).

No. It's more like saying that instead of lobbying their congressman at the time, or being out on the streets demonstrating, or whatever else they could currently be doing to change the system, they are instead involved in other unrelated activities.

You really think that if they didn't have TV or sporting events to go to, they'd be demonstrating on the streets or attempting to change the system in some other way? I seriously doubt it.

The simple fact is that major events (holidays, weekends, ect) can be a reason for people to put up with things they might otherwise not put up with.

I don't think that people are going to put up with crap in their lives because of holidays or tournaments. They may enjoy them and appreciate them. But if they are toiling and ready for revolt, they aren't going to be pacified by a simple celebration. Any effect is going to be very minor and end very quickly after the event itself.

Besides, a big reason for the events was for the joy and benefits of the nobility, not for the pacification of the people.

So "social commentor" to you means Tipper Gore

You haven't offered any other examples. You just threw out "social commentator". So I filled it in with my own example. You are just disagreeing without offering any other person to put in the blank.

I guess I can offer up the latest book, Grand Theft Childhood, which contends that even violent video games offer the people that play them to test boundaries and experiment with risky behavior in safe environment (behind the TV screen), and develops social skills and helps the players to relax.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson


But that wasn't even the question I asked you, the answer to which has nothing to do with the above association.

You may allow that I add certain points out of myself. My idea of a debate is not that one side exclusively decides what belongs into it.

Same with any "decadent", or any use of just about any word for that matter. The question isn't whether there is some absolute "decadent" that was observed by everyone at all times throughout history, it's whether you would consider them decadent. (Since I asked you the question.)

You buy slaves. You have the slaves kill each other for your amusement. That is "decadent" in my book. Not yours?

Not in the historical context of ancient Rome, which is the one that matters here IMO. I wrote some posts above that I don't see it as a sign of decadence. And even when applying my own standards, I wouldn't use "decadent" to describe it. The thing is that I see little use in judging it via my own ethical standards.

It certainly is described so in part because of gladiatorial spectacles. I myself am describing Roman gladiatorial matches as decadent. You may disagree with that description, but it is definitely made.

I noticed that.

You wouldn't consider someone having slaves kill each other for entertainment purposes a form a decadence?

See above.

You seem to be under the impression that the only thing involved in gladiatorial matches was the (common) spectator? These were costly productions that were (as funeral services) put on to honor specific people. According to wiki... they were viewed as so important that laws were necessitated about how much could be spent on gladiator fights to keep citizens from bankrupting themselves. Bankrupting yourself to buy slaves to kill each other is absolutely decadent.

I already posted that gladcom was part of Roman culture in general, and sure that means also for the rich, either as viewers or as those who had to pay for it. It's no secret that for example Caesar (like others) did go into deep debts to finance the "games", so that his war in Gaul was also a good opportunity to get money again. However I fail to see how it's per se decadent. For most richer guys holding expensive gladcom events was a sure way to gain status and better posts in Roman administration. If they went bankrupt in the process or not, I wouldn't see this as decadent. Slavery in general is many things, but "decadent" doesn't come to my mind first when I think about it.

And you want to pretend gladiatorial matches are akin to buying a glass of wine? Come on...

No, and I didn't do this. I illustrated how you were watering down things so much that anything would support your point.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Discussion is about culture, not the supression of civilization or progress. So pardon me for trying to drag the conversation back onto topic, or assuming that a post you had was even tangentially related to the topic at hand.

Discussion is about whatever you are referring to. Stop trying to retroactively change the context of what you were replying to. It's intellectually dishonest, and just makes you look foolish.

You said:

"You know, the whole idea that medieval tournaments may have been a contributing factor towards the suppression of culture being fairly amusing and all." - Imran

In reference to what you tried to claim was your "joke" (which "point" you have since repeatedly argued seriously):

I'm not sure the medieval tourneys kept the feudal system alive . - Imran

Which was initially made due to your misinterpretation of my question and previous statement:

You don't think that the medieval feudal system restricted progress? - Aeson
"[Tournaments] certainly were a product of (if not a factor in) the suppression of the civilization." - Aeson

You were attempting to mock my statement based on your misinterpretation that I was saying a cultural event was suppressing the culture. Of course a cultural event is not suppressing a culture, it's part of the culture. What I had said was that the events were a product of the suppression of the civilization. (The feudal system's negative impact on progress.)

Now you want to pretend you were trying to get us back "on topic" by responding to what I was saying and misrepresenting what it was. Or is that just a joke too?

In fact you go between them, saying "supression of the civilization" and later in the post "As for our own culture".

I said that our culture is in decline. That is not to say our civilization is in decline. Our civilization is at or near a local peak. We have declined a bit recently, but whether that's a long term trend or not is still to be seen.

That is a separate issue than if our culture is being suppressed. Which is different than if the civilization as a whole is being suppressed, which if what the analogy you are trying to pretend existed would have been.

Sorry that you can't keep such concepts straight in your head. (If I had to guess at where you are confused in this regard I would guess it's because you are confusing "suppression of a civilization" with "suppression of a culture", and then because "culture" shows up in both, are confusing "suppression of a culture" with "decline of a culture". If you can accept that "civilization" is not "culture" and that "suppression" is not "decline" then perhaps you can overcome this.)

And if its part of a myriad of factors, why mention it?

Because all factors are important. You can't just ignore all factors in an issue because there are other factors. That is asinine to even suggest.

More importantly though, it was related to a topic of discussion, which I addressed, and that is why I mentioned it. It's not a difficult concept.

Unless you believed it was more than just a mere factor, what is the point in claiming it may have been a factor in pacifying the people (and I don't think it was any more than a incredibly small factor).

I made the qualification ("if not") because I prefer to make accurate statements, and because it clarified what I was talking about. You are the one chose to focus on the "if not" instead of the actual statement I was making.

Now you are pretending you were trying to bring us back "on topic". What a laugh.

You really think that if they didn't have TV or sporting events to go to, they'd be demonstrating on the streets or attempting to change the system in some other way? I seriously doubt it.

They would be doing something other than watching TV and sporting events. What options they would choose would obviously vary. Some might just find another distraction, others might find more productive pursuits, others might face up to real issues, others might bring up the lack of those specific attractions as a real issue. It will vary.

I do think that the fewer distractions a person has, the more likely they are to focus on the other issues (other distractions included) in their life. Why do you find this so hard to believe?

I don't think that people are going to put up with crap in their lives because of holidays or tournaments.

Are you saying that holidays and celebrations are not incentives at all, and can't be to anyone?

They may enjoy them and appreciate them. But if they are toiling and ready for revolt, they aren't going to be pacified by a simple celebration.

You're still pretending it's the only factor. Now you're also trying to take it to some absurd hyperbolic "magic switch" that systems can flip if people are on the verge of revolting.

Like any good system of incentive/reward, it would be present before the issue comes to a head. It would be playing it's part in preventing that from happening in the first place. And it also wouldn't be solely relied upon. It would be part of an extensive system of control mechanisms.

Any effect is going to be very minor and end very quickly after the event itself.

No. There are lasting effects (impressions) that will continue. People don't just forget the past. There is also the "promise" of the next, which can work as incentive.

"Working for the weekend" and all that. Periods of relaxation and celebration are important factors in maintaining a populations satisfaction with a system. (Try eliminating it sometime and see how well that goes over.)

Besides, a big reason for the events was for the joy and benefits of the nobility, not for the pacification of the people.

So? It's possible to kill two birds with one stone. (And some other birds as well...) It also doesn't have to be an intended effect to be an effect.

A person who understands how people react to incentives and rewards, and knows how to present their authority in a way that will leave an impression, could have found tournaments a valuable tool in cementing their authority.

So "social commentor" to you means Tipper Gore

You haven't offered any other examples. You just threw out "social commentator". So I filled it in with my own example. You are just disagreeing without offering any other person to put in the blank.

WTF? Hiding your response to Wezil in a post with a series of my quotes without indication of who you are responding to? Wezil scares you that much?

Anyways, I'll gladly respond to this as well. When someone says "social commentor" and you assume they mean Tipper Gore, that belies your own associations between "Tipper Gore" and "social commentor", not the associations made by the original poster. When the original poster explains to you that by "social commentor" they are not referring to Tipper Gore, and you continue to pretend they are, you are being ignorant.

Are you so dense that you think Tipper Gore is the only "social commentator" who has ever talked about GTA?

[ZEE]

GTA is a boring repetitive series with no replay value after the first month-2 months of game play. It sells on name, and large target audience, alone then dies again quickly.

This cycle will continue on ad-infinitum as long as there are stupid gullible human beings to buy it only to have it sit on the shelf, or a box, the rest of the year while everybody else plays Unreal Tournament (insert volume here) and wonders why ev1 wasted their money, or (risked getting caught stealing) the newest GTA game.

[Asher]

GTA has 10x the replay value of Oblivion in single player alone. Mix in the 15 multiplayer modes and it may be 100x the replay value of Oblivion.

I say this as someone who finished Oblivion long ago and moved on.

Sorry ace.

PS: GTA did anything but "die quickly". It was still by far the most played game as of last year.

PPS: No one plays Unreal Tournament any more. It bombed.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
You may allow that I add certain points out of myself. My idea of a debate is not that one side exclusively decides what belongs into it.

You said "I disagree".

By doing so you referenced what I had said, and can't just make up stuff to disagree with. I had not said that gladiatorial matches were "a sign of cultural decline". So when you say "I disagree" and lead off with that, you are insinuating that I said something that I did not. I also had not said they were a sign of the decline of Rome. SO when you say "I disagree" and mention that, you are insinuating that I said something that I did not.

I pointed out what I did say so that you could actually address it, and not some conjurations that you attributed to me. You are free to make your own points, but not to attribute them to me.

Not in the historical context of ancient Rome, which is the one that matters here IMO. I wrote some posts above that I don't see it as a sign of decadence.

Decadence means self-indulgent. It is a very apt description of buying slaves to kill each other for your amusement. Indulging.. self. Placing your own entertainment as more important than the lives and freedom of others. That is decadent. If you disagree that killing others (by proxy) for amusement is decadence, you are hopeless.

You can hem and haw about how in the "historical context" of Rome (whatever you mean by that) makes it not decadent, but doing such is just trying to pawn off responsibility for your own analysis onto a defunct civilization instead of taking responsibility for your own opinions.

And even when applying my own standards, I wouldn't use "decadent" to describe it.

Ok, you don't think that it is decadent to buy slaves to kill each other for your selfish reasons. Was that so hard? Thanks.

I noticed that.

And then claimed that no one had ever made such a claim.

I already posted that gladcom was part of Roman culture in general, and sure that means also for the rich, either as viewers or as those who had to pay for it. It's no secret that for example Caesar (like others) did go into deep debts to finance the "games", so that his war in Gaul was also a good opportunity to get money again. However I fail to see how it's per se decadent.

For most richer guys holding expensive gladcom events was a sure way to gain status and better posts in Roman administration. If they went bankrupt in the process or not, I wouldn't see this as decadent.

Buying slaves to kill each other to increase your status in society is still decadent.

Slavery in general is many things, but "decadent" doesn't come to my mind first when I think about it.

Doesn't matter what comes first to your mind. What matters is whether it is applicable or not.

No, and I didn't do this. I illustrated how you were watering down things so much that anything would support your point.

You were watering down things, not I. When you take a subject like buying slaves to kill each other for your amusement (or even gain in status if you want), and try to pretend that calling it "decadent" would be like trying to call buying a glass of wine "decadent", you are grossly underestimating the difference between the two.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course a cultural event is not suppressing a culture, it's part of the culture.

Can it not be? I'm sure Tibetans may disagree when they see Han Chinese cultural events in their areas. As well as, say, things like early Christmas and Easter celebrations, which were appropriating pagan festivals to ultimately supress those cultural activities in favor of their own.

I said that our culture is in decline. That is not to say our civilization is in decline. Our civilization is at or near a local peak. We have declined a bit recently, but whether that's a long term trend or not is still to be seen.

That is a separate issue than if our culture is being suppressed. Which is different than if the civilization as a whole is being suppressed, which if what the analogy you are trying to pretend existed would have been.

You would imagine that one would follow the other. In fact, I'd argue that our civilization being at peak has resulted in our culure being in ascendance. Coca-Cola and McDonalds as well as Hollywood never had it so good. A few localized protests, perhaps, but expanding at rapid, rapid rates.

Unless you are trying to substitute the word civilization for progress, which doesn't inherantly follow.

After all, most of the dictionary definitions of civilization include culture as being an integral part.

They would be doing something other than watching TV and sporting events. What options they would choose would obviously vary. Some might just find another distraction, others might find more productive pursuits, others might face up to real issues, others might bring up the lack of those specific attractions as a real issue. It will vary.

I do think that the fewer distractions a person has, the more likely they are to focus on the other issues (other distractions included) in their life. Why do you find this so hard to believe?

Have you met the American people? They'll find something else to do. I mean if they can't get excited enough so that less than 50% of the people turn out to vote for President, I don't think they'll get interested in politics because you took their sports away. Those things, TV, sports, etc, exist for a reason. People want to have some entertainment. They don't give as much importance about politics or other "issues that impact their lives". Add in the people who say they just don't care about politics at all.

You're still pretending it's the only factor.

Every factor is supposed to be important, right? So you've said? I'd imagine if it was an important factor, it would be that powerful.

No. There are lasting effects (impressions) that will continue. People don't just forget the past. There is also the "promise" of the next, which can work as incentive.

"Working for the weekend" and all that. Periods of relaxation and celebration are important factors in maintaining a populations satisfaction with a system. (Try eliminating it sometime and see how well that goes over.)

You'd eliminate it and people would just clamor for it back, not engage in some thought about the entire system of capitalism and exploitation. It won't lead to changes or unsatisfication with the system itself, but with the thing that is being taken away.

Taking away weekend breaks won't be turning a bunch of people in socialists.

Hiding your response to Wezil in a post with a series of my quotes without indication of who you are responding to?

If you noticed, I didn't say I was quoting to you, just [ q ] and pasted.

My, how ever did you realize I was responding to you then!!

When someone says "social commentor" and you assume they mean Tipper Gore, that belies your own associations between "Tipper Gore" and "social commentor", not the associations made by the original poster. When the original poster explains to you that by "social commentor" they are not referring to Tipper Gore, and you continue to pretend they are, you are being ignorant.

Then the original poster says they are refering to other commentators and refuses to provide someone else, and dramatically misinterprets the provided commentator's views to try to distance themselves from what those people believe, then why not press on with it until a substitute is named?

And Gore is a stand in for the PMC types and Jack Thompson types, who all make the same argument (it is harmful for our culture).

All Wezil would have had to have done is say, no, not Gore, but X.

Which other types of commentators have refered to the game? I have no idea.

[Wezil]

Don't be dense. I'm sure I could find a thousand criticisms other than Tipper with a 1/2 second Google search.

I was referring to non-agenda social scientists that have postulated this sort of culture is bad for our children. You do realise psychologists and others study this sort of thing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was referring to non-agenda social scientists that have postulated this sort of culture is bad for our children. You do realise psychologists and others study this sort of thing?

Please link me to them then. Stop just saying they exist and show me some. I've already indicated to you the people who wrote "Grand Theft Childhood" (I think I mistakenly said it was GT Children earlier) - who are social scientists.

You are saying you are sure you could find a thousand criticisms from (supposedly) non-agenda social scientists, but haven't even presented one to make your case.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Please link me to them then. Stop just saying they exist and show me some. I've already indicated to you the people who wrote "Grand Theft Childhood" (I think I mistakenly said it was GT Children earlier) - who are social scientists.

I thought the issue didn't exist?

Do you really want to read the research or are you doubting it exists? I'm not in the field but I'm sure I could find some if I spent the time on it? Again, why do you want the links? 1)Truly curious, 2) DOn't think it exists, or 3) Want to piss Wezil off and waste his time? I'm guessing 3) based on your performance thus far in this thread.

You are saying you are sure you could find a thousand criticisms from (supposedly) non-agenda social scientists, but haven't even presented one to make your case.

I spent pages in this thread waiting for you to admit there even is a case. In the meantime I was subjected to your abuse and hyperbole (and Kuci's) on a straw man argument I wasn't even presenting. Now your defence was that I didn't present my evidence?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Can it not be? I'm sure Tibetans may disagree when they see Han Chinese cultural events in their areas. As well as, say, things like early Christmas and Easter celebrations, which were appropriating pagan festivals to ultimately supress those cultural activities in favor of their own.

You're trying to be obtuse. Hilariously enough, in a manner which would destroy your entire initial premise of this discussion if it were accepted. It was you who first proposed that it was silly to suggest that a cultural event was suppressing a culture.

Further, you are trying to change the context of my statement from a cultural event's relation to that particular culture, and pretend instead the context was a cultural event in relation to a different culture.

You would imagine that one would follow the other. In fact, I'd argue that our civilization being at peak has resulted in our culure being in ascendance. Coca-Cola and McDonalds as well as Hollywood never had it so good. A few localized protests, perhaps, but expanding at rapid, rapid rates.

So?

You are again forgetting that there are other factors involved. You want to pretend that they follow lock-step and nothing can override the effect of culture on civilization as a whole. That is simply not the case.

Unless you are trying to substitute the word civilization for progress, which doesn't inherantly follow.

Suppressing a civilization can work many ways. I did specify that the way I was specifically talking about "progress". I did so in the post your "joke" was a response to, so that should have been clear from the get go.

It's ludicrous for you to now pretend that I may or may not have been talking about "progress". You simply can't deal with what's actually been said.

After all, most of the dictionary definitions of civilization include culture as being an integral part.

It is one aspect of a civilization. It is not the only aspect. I clarified which aspect I was referring to before our discussion even started.

Have you met the American people? They'll find something else to do.

Not everyone reacts the same way.

Part of American's general apathy towards politics is that we have so many distractions to lose ourself in. That doesn't mean distractions aren't effective at... distracting... people from an issue. It just means we have a plethora of options in that regard.

I mean if they can't get excited enough so that less than 50% of the people turn out to vote for President, I don't think they'll get interested in politics because you took their sports away.

If one of the presidential candidates ran on the platform that they would eliminate sporting events, it would almost surely increase turnout at the polls. (Assuming they were by some miracle even put on the ballot and generally considered a viable candidate.) Don't you think?

Also you presume that non-voters have no interest in politics.

Those things, TV, sports, etc, exist for a reason. People want to have some entertainment.

Which is why they can be effective appeasement tools.

Every factor is supposed to be important, right? So you've said? I'd imagine if it was an important factor, it would be that powerful.

It is important to understand all factors. How can you determine what is actually going on if you intentionally ignore what's going on?

That does not mean all factors will have the same extent of impact. You are the one who has consistently argued from the perspective that this must be an all-important factor. I have said it is just a factor, and have not deigned to specify how much it is a factor. So if you wish to argue about how much impact a factor is (rather than whether or not it could be a factor), you are arguing with yourself on this one.

You'd eliminate it and people would just clamor for it back, not engage in some thought about the entire system of capitalism and exploitation.

So? If you didn't give it back, you'd likely lose control, or at least have a more difficult time maintaining control. That's the point. These types of distractions, regardless of why people like them, are things that can be used to cement control so long as there is a demand for them, and you can be (or be viewed as involved in) the "supply".

It won't lead to changes or unsatisfication with the system itself, but with the thing that is being taken away.

It will surely lead to changes. What type of changes will vary from system to system. In our system, if you did such, you'd probably be out of office very quickly. That is a change, and will impact changes in the system. In extreme cases, it could overturn the whole system, but probably not unless you were able to change the system to maintain control to such extent that revoking said changes (basically, kicking you out and putting someone in to change things back) was impossible through the system.

Taking away weekend breaks won't be turning a bunch of people in socialists.

It will be turning them into people who really, really, don't like you or want you in control.

If you noticed, I didn't say I was quoting to you, just [ q ] and pasted.

Yes. Exactly. You didn't say who you were quoting. You just hid it in a post along with several quotes of mine.

My, how ever did you realize I was responding to you then!!

Because it was my statements you were quoting first. If you had quoted someone else several times and then snuck in a quote from me without referring to whom you were quoting (maybe even if you did), I likely would have missed it.

Then the original poster says they are refering to other commentators and refuses to provide someone else, and dramatically misinterprets the provided commentator's views to try to distance themselves from what those people believe, then why not press on with it until a substitute is named?

Because it's obvious they aren't talking about Tipper Gore? I mean, you can ask who they are talking about specifically... but to pretend they are talking about someone they are not is stupid.

And Gore is a stand in for the PMC types and Jack Thompson types, who all make the same argument (it is harmful for our culture).

Not all commentators say the same thing. Wezil himself is presenting his own position, which (in some cases) you have ignored and instead pretended he is arguing what Gore is arguing.

All Wezil would have had to have done is say, no, not Gore, but X.

All he has to do is say "not Gore" and it means that it is "not Gore". If you can't understand that, you're beyond hopeless. If you want an alternative, ask him. He may or may not give you a specific name. Don't simply continue arguing as if Wezil is Tipper Gore, ignoring what Wezil actually says and instead pretending what Gore has said is what Wezil says.

Do you really have to be told this?

Which other types of commentators have refered to the game? I have no idea.

Then perhaps you should wait to argue the subject until it is clear what you are arguing about?