TheMightyEthan

Well, anything spelled root, like square root, but yes.

Actually, some Americans say rowt, some say root, though being among the rowt crowd it bugs the crap out of me whenever someone says root. In my experience though everyone pronounces router (both as in the networking equipment and the shop tool) as rowter, and "rout" as in "defeat" is pronounced rowt by everyone I've ever heard say it as well.

What I meant was that without the ability to express dissent effective democracy cannot survive. Sure you can still vote, but if the government can control how the issues are presented then how meaningful is that vote really? To me the difference between this and the Great Firewall of China is one of degree, not of kind. And yes, it falls under drug laws and sex abuse laws, but my point was that just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's bad (again, not saying drug abuse or rape is good). Just because something's illegal does not mean it should be illegal, so "it's illegal" is a completely meaningless justification. That was my point about the gay thing: being gay used to be illegal, so by your reasoning they would have been just as justified in banning media that portrayed gay people in a positive light. Or hell, gay marriage is still illegal in the UK, so what if they refused classification to anything that portrayed gay marriage as a positive thing? "It's illegal" cannot be the justification for banning a certain viewpoint. Yes, allowing anyone to express any viewpoint on any topic can allow in some shit, but I would take that over the authorities getting to decide what viewpoints you can and cannot express any day. To do the stereotypical American thing and quote someone in support of my argument (though at least this time is a Brit): Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, in describing Voltaire's outlook, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Agreed. If you have enough votes to pass the legislation you should have the ability to bring it to a vote in the first place. The original intention was to encourage thoughtful debate by making it so a simple majority can't just jump to a conclusion and pass a law without thinking about it, a minority can say "wait, we need to think this through and be sure we're right" and you have to have a 60% of the legislators say "no, we've discussed this enough to make a reasoned decision." That idea makes sense in theory, but in practice it just devolved into obstructionism.

In the US hate speech isn't illegal. You can go on national TV and say that all Muslims should be killed because they're Muslim and the government can't do anything about it (except be like "maybe we should keep an eye on this guy"). The only time something like that can be illegal is if the speaker intends the audience to actually break the law, that they are likely to do so immediately ("inciting imminent lawless action"). So even saying about a specific person, "Soandso should be killed because he's Muslim!" isn't illegal pretty much unless that person is present and the audience hearing the words is likely to act on the statement. (I am over simplifying things, here's the Wikipedia article on the concept.) I realize that's all US law, I'm just giving more background on where I'm coming from. And why I don't find arguments like "it's like banning hate speech" particularly effective. Like TN said earlier, it just seems so oppressiony. Like, how can democracy survive when the government has the authority to suppress ideas/viewpoints with which it disagrees? Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's objectively right that it's illegal, it just means it's perceived as bad, but if you're only ever allowed to depict it in a negative fashion then it's going to be much more difficult to change that perception. Imagine if being gay were still illegal, so the government refused classification of any media which depicted gay relationships as anything other than a horrible disease that will ruin your life? Hell, as far as I know that's what it was like in the 50's (here too, though it wasn't the government doing it it was the media companies themselves). Not to say using drugs is the same as being gay, I'm just saying that if you're not allowed to challenge ideas and perceptions then it perpetuates the status quo, whether the status quo is justified or not.

Because then you end up with the federal system where a single person can block a vote by saying "I'm filibustering this" and then going home to bang his mistress or whatever. At least Texas' way you have to actually do it, which means it's going to be something you really care about, not something you're just mildly opposed to. That's why nothing can get through the US senate, because every damn thing gets filibustered.

People are all concerned that making it a disease will mean everyone will have to make all these concessions, like special theater seats and whatnot. My wife pointed out that alcoholism has been a diagnosable disease for a long time but that doesn't mean they get special treatment when they're drunk.

See, I can kind of see where they're coming from in both instances, in that I can see why it would be frowned upon, but I find it all completely indefensible. The idea that the government can dictate the kind of light in which you can or cannot depict something is just completely antithetical to the entire idea of a free society to me. Like, I'm not even arguing that it's okay to depict drugs that way, I'm arguing that whether it's okay or not the government should not have the power to make that decree.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's the Alien Anal Probe weapon. Seriously, Australia?

In my experience the people in charge actually say "this goes against what the most prude among the people who elected us believe in, so it won't be available for anyone" whereas I feel like if people don't like it they don't have to play/watch/listen to it, whatever. That obviously only works if there's good content advisories, but that's the whole point of a rating system.

But that assumes that 1) there's no one else in the room for the Kinect to be picking up (even headsets sometimes have trouble determining which voices they're supposed to be activated for), and 2) there's no one else around for the other people's voices to bother.

What about in Demon's Souls/Dark Souls? This seems a bit comparable to that. Haven't played either of those (Dark Souls is on my backlog), so I can't say. I will say that even in the MMOs I've played I preferred PvE over PvP.

imo if you're on XBL with voice chat on, and you're not in a party, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/06/25/xbox-ones-must-have-wired-headset-sold-separately/

"You caught me monologuing!" Yeah, for me it depends on how involved in the conversation the other person seems, but over the years I've gotten better about not feeling obligated to respond the same way I would on the phone. I treat it more like texting.

lol

I prefer not to play against humans. It's just less fun for me.

I understand why it might be frowned upon, what blows my mind is the government can say "no, you're not allowed to depict things in certain ways, even in media intended for adults". That's just insane.

I fail to see the relevance of whether the act is legal or not. We're not talking about people doing these things, we're talking about allowing them to consume media in which these things are depicted.

Okay, but 18+ means adults only right? The idea of any kind of government agency saying "this material is not suitable for adult consumption" is just so bizarre to me. What restrictions are placed on items that are refused classification? I don't expect you to know about the Australian system, but is there an equivalent in the UK's system?

You don't just get a 1099 or whatever from them at the end of the year?

Huh, weird. In the US if you get married you just start marking the married box when you file, and if you get divorced you just start marking the single box again.

Saints Row 4 was refused classification in Australia. I thought we were done with this shit once they enacted the R18+. Isn't the point of that that it's for adults and so you've no business saying what is and isn't appropriate for them?

They've said it has to be connected, but nothing they've said so far indicates that it actually has to be detecting you.

Learn something new every day. This is why I don't do tax law.