EpycWyn's forum posts

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#1 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

@Planeforger: I know what he means. This is the basis of the argument that this was a problem because of the implied coercion that he could potentially wield his influence as a means of punishing them should they not comply. However, that is an assumption in the minds of the women and was never stated. He has also not been documented punishing women who did not comply. While a person with social intuition would take into account the women would worry he may punish them if they do not comply, ultimately they still had the ability to walk out and say no and were operating on an assumption that they would get in trouble if they did otherwise. While I fully comprehend this logic, this assumption within their minds that they did not have a choice, was an assumption, not a certainty. Just because people have power does not mean they are no longer allowed to ask consent for sexual acts with others.

With all that in mind, I again say this was a mild sexual misdemeanor at worst.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#2 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

This is an intelligent thread made for the sole purpose of posting memes, references, and humorous posting and in no way is meant to cause flaming, trolling, thread derailment, or encourage in any way such behavior. That is at least, what I am requires by this forum's laws to say. The following thread is a non-profit fan-based parody please support the official memes.


1 V 1 ME MODS AND ADMINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
~Buddhist Proverb

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#3 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

Sonic is better.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#4 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

@joshrmeyer: I meant CBS lel. I mix them up. CBS owns GameSpot not PBS.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#5 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

GameSpot Terms of Service Link:17. Disputes; Arbitration

"If you have any dispute with or claim against us or any of our affiliates, or if we have a dispute with or claim against you, in either case arising out of or relating to the Services or these Terms (a “Claim”), and the Claim is not resolved by calling our customer service department at (888)274-5343, you and we each agree to resolve such Claim through an individual binding arbitration or through an individual action in small claims court in the U.S. county (or parish) of your residence or in San Francisco, California. Class arbitrations and class actions are not permitted, and your Claim may not be consolidated with any other person’s claim. You and we agree that the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision, and that you and we are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action. This Section 17 shall survive termination of these Terms or any subscription that you may have to any of the Services.

Before you or we commence an arbitration or file a small claims court action with respect to a Claim, you must first send to CBS Interactive a written notice of your claim or we must send a written notice of our claim to you ("Notice"). Your Notice must (1) be sent by certified mail; (2) be addressed to: CBS Interactive, 235 Second Street, San Francisco, CA 94105Attn: Legal Department; (3) describe the nature of your Claim; and (4) specify the damages or other relief you seek. If we and you do not then resolve the Claim within 30 days after our receipt of Notice is received, either you or we may commence an arbitration or file a small claims court action to resolve the Claim.

Any such arbitration shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association and be conducted in accordance with its Consumer Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”). Contact information for the American Arbitration Association, as well as copies of the Rules and applicable forms, are available at http://www.adr.org In circumstances in which the Rules provide for an in-person hearing, such hearing will take place in the U.S. county (or parish) of your residence, or otherwise in San Francisco, California. For any non-frivolous Claim that does not exceed $50,000, CBS Interactive will pay all costs of the arbitration, and reimburse any filing fees you may be required to pay. If the arbitrator awards you damages that are greater than CBS Interactive’s last written settlement offer communicated before commencement of the arbitration, CBS Interactive will pay you the greater of $1,000 or the amount of the award."

This should absolutely be illegal in all countries, but it is not. That does not give GameSpot, nor its owner PBS, the right to engage in this immensely corrupt practice.

What this means, is that we the users cannot under any circumstance bring GameSpot to court by ourselves nor unionize against GameSpot through a Class Action lawsuit and they get to choose who presides over this case if any of us ever take legal action against them.

Let me be the first to formally state, we the users of GameSpot DO NOT agree to this arbitration, WILL CONTINUE to use this forum regardless, and NO GOOD PERSON would defend this defamation of our legal rights. I use this forum because it is an online forum I need for free speech with people I relate to. How dare GameSpot and additionally how dare CBS subject anyone to this abuse of business power.

This entire section should be abolished immediately if GameSpot as well as PBS have any sense of integrity or respect for their users, customers, and the citizens of this Earth.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#6 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

@korvus: I've been doing such horrible things to women. I've been respecting them, treating them as equals, and worst of all, acting as if women are able to make their own choices. Such awful things.

You know what would make more sense? If the women simply said "no," and moved on. They were not directly told to watch or else; they simply chose to. It seems unethical that Louis CK is considered an abuser in this situation, yet if the women asked first, then suddenly it would've been okay. Just because you're famous, male, and powerful doesn't mean you suddenly lose the permission to ask consent. What was he supposed to do, write a detailed paper on the many social nuances of asking for consent before asking? Everyone should have the right to ask consent. If we promote a society where people can lose that right, what you will be left with is people who choose to instead act without consent since asking will be proven a waste of time -a far worse problem.

He shouldn't have done this while married, he should have better social intuition to know what is and isn't going to make people socially uncomfortable, but beyond that this is a pretty mild problem at worst.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#7 Posted by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

It could be worse.


We could be the Escapist Magazine.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#8 Edited by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

So is it just me or has everyone on GameSpot ignored Sonic Forces? No review, no forum posts, nothing.

Edit: Oh so NOW there's a review.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#9 Edited by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

I advise the people who are about to overreact to this thread's title, read this full post first.

Here is the scandal in a nutshell:

Louis CK took out his penis and masturbated on five separate occasions in front of five separate women. He did this with consent, but because he's "powerful" and "male" people online have said this was abuse. His work I Love You, Daddy has been cancelled over this scandal.

The New York Times: Louis C.K. is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct

The New York Times: Louis C.K. Responds to Accusations: 'These Stories Are True'

With honesty, I should further note the present overwhelming majority of people agree what he did was absolutely wrong. I disagree. If this information changes and it is clear-cut shown he did not gain consent on any occasion, I will immediately agree he was 100% in the wrong in all those instances. In regards to the phone interaction, I believe he should've asked consent for that one, but it was done in a separate area so it is a minor sexual misdemeanor at worst.

Now I have taken classes on communication, interpersonal/business communication, rhetoric, and most relevantly, persuasion. The ethical dilemma presented here is the implied coercion that "If you don't let me masturbate in front of you, I might get violent or rape you since I'm an aggressive man, or I might get you fired because I have powerful connections, or I can make everyone hate you because I'm famous; hell I could do all three HAHAHAHAHA!" It is a truly monstrous implication and if that implication had been outright stated, well I would absolutely agree with everyone that what he did is without any remote justification. But he didn't explicitly say any of that. Implied coercion is not as clear-cut as explicit coercion and it is far harder to argue he is in the wrong when he received explicit verbal consent.

Knocking down the arguments for Louis CK's actions having been unethical; both intelligent and mundane ones:

Anyone who argues "because you're a man you have implied, socially constructed, evolved power over the woman and thus it's not consent," is not only being incredibly sexist, but by that logic you might as well say every woman who ever consented to sex with a man was raped. This argument is pretty obviously bad.

"They admired him, therefore it was without consent." ... Having sex with someone who admires you is wrong? Pretty ridiculous reasoning; it's the person's choice to admire, it's the person's choice to watch them masturbate. True coercion removes a person's ability to choose. Admiration is often the basis of attraction so that is pretty ridiculous as a basis for deeming this act unethical

"He is famous, therefore it was without consent." Attention everyone: famous people who date are now officially sex offenders. You gotta be kidding me that people have thought this on some level.

"THIS IS ILLEGAL"- nope. Feel free to prove me wrong since I'm not a legal expert, but I have not read anything showing how this is illegal. Though I would also like to add, legality does not determine right versus wrong and should not be the basis of ethical judgements. But this goes both ways, meaning you aren't suddenly prevented from saying this is unethical just because it's not illegal; though I think I have so far displayed the many limitations of viewing Louis CK's masturbation as unethical.

"Gross" -boys have penises girls have vaginas we both piss and shit and most of us masturbate get over it we don't owe society political correctness we didn't choose to get born and we don't have to adhere to what does and doesn't make people feel comfortable.

"Traumatically shocking" You aren't going to like my response to this argument, I'm gonna say that right now; for what it's worth, that I believe indicates this argument has some merit. But ultimately, trauma is highly subjective in what causes it, why it's caused, and if the traumatic reaction makes sense. I can for instance, envision a society a century from now where public nudity is common, people masturbate in their rooms after inviting people inside without even asking consent, and that's all deemed just normal behavior and if you don't like it, just leave the room or close your eyes. But in our present age, it's simply a case of that behavior being so weird, that it thus can cause trauma, even though if it were common, it probably would not. He at bare minimum consented, so I don't believe people getting traumatized should in itself be the basis since what is "traumatizing" is subjective to the times and thus not a good basis for judging what actions are right and wrong.

"THIS IS RAPE" -apples to penises. Masturbating at a distance from someone who consented is not rape.

"He is married and has kids" you're probably correct to say this act was unethical for this reason. However, I would also say our society has built itself in a way where nobody can reasonably engage in free love as the Hippies envisioned or polygamy as the Mormons envisioned except under rare circumstances, so I can understand why he might resist marital limitations even if the action I personally believe is unethical since he chose to get married. Unless of course it turns out his wife was fine with this all along (I seriously doubt that).

"This affected their careers negatively!" I am open to this argument, if someone can explain it to me since I have yet to read an explanation as to why this is the case beyond my previous mentioned argument "Traumatically shocking."

In short, I believe Dr. Azin said it best when he posted the following comment on the New York Times:

"We are careening toward a society comprised of total hypocrisy. Sure, this is some creepy stuff, but all those (now a vast majority, as with Weinstein, et al, forming a line to hypocritically condemn) expressing righteous indignation and companies canceling and cutting ties with any “sinner”, when surely, somewhere in their past, they’ve committed some unsavory acts, are, yes, hypocrites.

This is how our political system reached its current nadir—we accept and support only “perfect” candidates who haven't done anything human, when we ourselves have made our own mistakes. What we get, of course, is only the best liars in the world."

Wake up and read between the lines people he didn't do anything unethical beyond the fact he did this while married. I never knew much about Louis C.K. before this and I can't say I think any less of him after this.

Avatar image for EpycWyn
#10 Edited by EpycWyn (46 posts) -

The joke is that Jimmy Kimmel is calling Obamacare Trumpcare in an effort to get people to ignore party biases and sign up for it.

I predict this will become a big meme.