Messages

[Post Merge: Sep 22, 2014, 05:59 PM]

I see where people are coming from from both sides of the fence. I mean, yeah it's not right to "sexually harass" people. But come on, it's not like he physically abused them and anybody got hurt.

I think the whole thing is just silly.

No one was physically hurt no, but what's to say that the women that weren't inclided in the final cut (of course there are some women that didn't react how Sam wanted and therefore didn't make the cut) didn't feel saddened on an emotional level? Sexual harassment, and that's what this was, is illegal and shouldn't be seen lightly. Normalising sexual harassment is not appropriate, no matter how funny some people thought it was
Post Merge: Sep 22, 2014, 05:59 PM

What I am trying to say is that I am sick and tired of people using sexism as an excuse to promote their own f**ed up personal agenda or trying to get famous off it (see Anita Sarkeesian)

What about being morally opposed to sexual harassment is promoting an agenda other than being a decent person?

people these days overreact to everything.

It's difficult to not see where people are coming from, sexual harassment isn't funny...

Why would these celebrities take nude pictures of themselves? This is a lesson kids; Don't take nude selfies with your smartphone.

Why shouldn't these adults have taken these pictures? Whether people like it or not, sexting and nude photographs make up a part of modern sexuality and people should be allowed to explore it and do as they wish in their private life. We shouldn't be asking why take photographs, we should be asking why someone went to imaginably large efforts to intrude on and then publish a part of people's private lives.

[Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:19 AM]

That isn't an argument, you can't just state a figure and then suddenly have me have your opinion. The fact that cancer kills more does not make it any more worthy of support but clearly I'm fighting a losing battle because tradition always wins out and being able to say you donated in the fight against cancer always makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Cancer isn't the only issue the world faces, people need to realise this.
Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:19 AM
OMG can you hear yourself. THE THIRD WORLD IS VERY UNEDUCATED ON THESE ISSUES. That's why this charity exists..........
Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:19 AM
Also cancer is not indiscriminate, I hence propose we support a cancer charity that does not aid those with lung cancer that have ever smoked in their life.

By your logic, The cancer charity is not global as there is no representation for other diseases. By the same logic the animal charity offers no support for humans and hence is not global.

WRH promotes reproductive health it's in the name, perhaps I should have made that clearer.

[Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:11 AM]

The charity helps provide women in poorer countries with access to contraceptives that not only help reduce the spread of HIV in the third world but helps with the problem of over population. Also, animals aren't worth as much as a human life in my eyes yet we're outwardly supporting a charity for animals. Neglecting women in favour of animals seems rather ridiculous - I was pointing out a charity that is often swept under the rug in favour of traditional 'CANCER IS BAD' and 'SAVE THE ANIMALS AND CHILDREN' charities.
Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:11 AM
Also, 'Also, this is not really a global charity as it helps only women.'  That statement is entirely fallacious, I'll let you figure out why.

[Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:00 AM]

Women's Reproductive Health Charity

Woman Care Global's mission is to provide affordable access to high-quality reproductive health products for women and girls around the world through a sustainable value chain, empowering them to make and act on safe choices.
Post Merge: Jul 01, 2014, 07:00 AM
Also, should voting really have opened before you'd drawn up a list of the charities people suggest?

And we're sourcing figures from where? Or is this another bullshit 'OMG YOUTUBERS MAKE SO MUCH' estimate based off of the $7 per video ad view?

Giving staff permissions would not violate the EULA as staff is not earned via payment.

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?

Users may keep the perks they've paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It's up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.


This will mean the rescinding of certain permissions then I guess?

TennisKhera

Yey I managed it on my iPad :3

Nice. Channel 4 really progressing UK TV, from their Sochi 2014 Gay Mountain, Space Live and now this..

Channel 4 undoes itself in terms of being Gay positive with regards to 'Gay Mountain' and the documentary about gay marriage. They bolster an unduly stereotypical view of homosexuality that makes people ignorant to the idea that homosexuals are normal people. A homosexual is not a flamboyant stereotype that a station can use to push itself as inclusive in order to garner support for itself. 


In terms of this article it's an interesting push by gaming to become a more mainstream, less exclusive form of media. Those that play video games remain, to some degree, seen as time wasters and it will be interesting to see how this mashup will affect that. I'm hardly a proponent of channel 4 and what some would deem its 'quality' programming, but I'm curious as to see how this pans out and especially how the reviews read.

Fair enough, although they have done other sorts of documentaries such as 'Cure me, I'm Gay', demonstrating the beliefs some people and cultures have towards the homosexuals as absurd. Although, I can certainly see your point (exemplified in Gogglebox, for example). At least they're actually broadcasting stuff at least trying to show homosexuals in a good light, as opposed to the other broadcasters staying clear of all things LGBT.

Plus, they obviously don't just broadcast stuff about homosexuals - do you not like any of their other documentaries / programmes like Space Live, Educating Yorkshire (/Essex) etc., as well as bringing some of the US dramas over here (e.g. Homeland and Fargo airing this month).

I don't typically enjoy Channel 4 documentaries, no. They present documentaries often on sensationalist issues for the sake of being sensationalist or to appeal to what they already know is public opinion. Educating Yorkshire and Essex were a great way of latching people onto the idea 'these people are stupid look at how stupid they are' as it is often pushed to the public that people from these areas are dim (Joey Essex). People expected to be, and to a large extent were, entertained by the idiocy displayed.

Nice. Channel 4 really progressing UK TV, from their Sochi 2014 Gay Mountain, Space Live and now this..

Channel 4 undoes itself in terms of being Gay positive with regards to 'Gay Mountain' and the documentary about gay marriage. They bolster an unduly stereotypical view of homosexuality that makes people ignorant to the idea that homosexuals are normal people. A homosexual is not a flamboyant stereotype that a station can use to push itself as inclusive in order to garner support for itself. 


In terms of this article it's an interesting push by gaming to become a more mainstream, less exclusive form of media. Those that play video games remain, to some degree, seen as time wasters and it will be interesting to see how this mashup will affect that. I'm hardly a proponent of channel 4 and what some would deem its 'quality' programming, but I'm curious as to see how this pans out and especially how the reviews read.