backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 254 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Jan 3 at 11:48 PM

"Transformers" director expresses conspiracy theory against Microsoft

Michael Bay has always been a big Hollywood director, but following his smash hit Transformers, Bay himself transformed into a high-definition controversy mogul.

Responding to a question posted on Michael Bay’s official web forums asking once again why Transformers was released only on HD DVD and not Blu-ray Disc, Bay expressed his believe that Microsoft is behind a scheme to sabotage both high-definition disc formats. Mind you, Microsoft is one of the pioneers and largest backers of HD DVD.

“What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads,” wrote Bay. “That is the dirty secret no one is talking about.”

Paramount, the studio behind Transformers, and DreamWorks signed an exclusive HD DVD agreement on August 20, thus ending support for Blu-ray Disc for those two companies. According to numerous reports, the deal to secure the allegiance of Paramount and DreamWorks was in the neighbourhood of $150 million, which the Hollywood director takes issue with.

“That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray,” continued Bay. “They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.”

Similar sentiments against Microsoft were expressed over a month ago at a Blu-ray Festival by 20th Century Fox’s president Mike Dunn. Microsoft’s Kevin Collins, director in the Microsoft Consumer Media Technology Group, later retorted, “The [Blu-ray] camp’s claims about Microsoft’s desire to have a format war are baseless. Microsoft has over 100 people working on HD DVD interactivity and we believe that HD DVD is the next-generation optical format.”

Bay’s recent comments are just the latest in a long string of criticisms from the flashy director. At the time of Paramount and DreamWorks’ announcement, Bay threw a virtual fit over the decision that would see his Transformers film released only on one high-definition format.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me," exclaimed Bay in August. Amusingly, Bay later backpedalled on his blog to a different tune, praising HD DVD’s affordable hardware pricing and said that he might indeed be back to direct Transformers 2.

The director then reignited the controversy in October when he said, “As a director, my critical eye is that Blu-ray is where my money is. Consumers are smart, and they are going to wait it out.”

Upon the release of Transformers on HD DVD, the film immediately broke home video release records on October 16. Transformers on HD DVD became the fastest selling high-definition release in history, with 100,000 copies sold on the first day.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Michael Bay
By SeeManRun on 12/5/2007 4:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't Michael Bay the leader of the Film Actors Guild? He seems like he would be the leader for the Film Actors Guild, as he personifies everything involved in being a member of the Film Actors Guild!




RE: Michael Bay
By ninjit on 12/5/2007 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a reason you felt compelled to repeat the words "Film Actors Guild" 3 times in such a short span


RE: Michael Bay
By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/5/2007 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
Film Actors Guild
F.A.G.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 9:18:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's ok to throw out a word that means "humans so unimportant we can burn them alive"
Wow you've certainly been brainwashed by the politically correct machine. He said a word, he didn't burn anyone at the stake. He didn't even imply he wanted to. He merely (very vaguely) insinuated that he finds homosexuality in some way distasteful. And you want to crucify him for that?

Believe it or not, free speech matters. Protecting unpopular speech is most important of all.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
a group of people that have had countless injustices done to them
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:

Women
Blacks
Chinese
Japanese
Irish
Italians
Poles
Jews
Hispanics
Slavs
Atheists
Christians
Mormons
Muslims
etc, etc, etc, etc.

In other words-- pretty much the whole damn country. And he wasn't standing up for anyone's rights, he was questioning the OP's right to consider certain actions distasteful. I don't have any moral problems with homosexuality itself, but I certainly respect other people's right to regard it so.

quote:
I take it you throw around the N word because it's unpopular right?
Wow talk about prejudice and jumping to conclusions. I'm intelligent enough to realize its just a word. Actions are what count, not words. If you think you're really accomplishing anything good by maintaining some prissy list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" words, you're fooling yourself.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 12/7/2007 3:12:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:
And furthermore, let's look at some of these injustices:

Blacks - oppressed because of skin pigmentation, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to avoid oppression and discrimination

Women - oppressed because of reproductive anatomy and biology, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to escape oppression and discrimination

Homos - oppressed because of BEHAVIOR, which is as easy to modify or conceal as one's preference for particular undergarments

History is replete with homos who reached pinnacles of social, professional, and economic status, provided they exercised a little discretion about their paraphilias, just like heterosexuals had to.

Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


RE: Michael Bay
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


SHUTUP OFFTOPIKERS
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/11/2007 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


Except whatever the norm is right? Strait, white males desiring other white, disrespected women in their commercials. Good thing any other culture has to "sell out" to be accepted. You in just one post showed exactly what's wrong with democracy, and America. Plato called it the worst choice but the only one that will work. It like any other kind of government: they put faith in the one thing that asses like you don't allow: a strong common sense and good nature. Again, what an ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 1/3/2008 11:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
But certainly no more of an ass than someone who would attempt to equate the 'oppression' of socially unacceptable behavior in which one freely elects to participate with oppression based along anatomical features that are completely beyond one's control and impossible (or extremely difficult) to conceal.

I'm not singling out homosexuals, as should have been perfectly clear when I included heterosexuals with various paraphilias and deviant sexual behaviors as being among those who had to and still do have to exercise a little discretion if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination.

However, you don't see a heterosexual BDSM lobby trying to get cultural diversity programs in elementary schools to promote tolerance and acceptance of the BDSM lifestyle and sub-culture, nor lobbying for such "constitutional rights" as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for injuries or health problems resulting from BDSM practices (e.g. I have a constitutional right to stick whatever I want up my rear and have as much unprotected anal sex with multiple strangers as I want, and you have to pay for the medical and health consequences).

As an identifiable group, LGBT are the only game in town who is working politically to gain protected class status for a freaking paraphilia and its attendent sub-culture and lifestyle. Well, pedophiles and pederasts do have a small lobby in some countries, but have had little influence in the West after most (but not all) of the LGBT community decided in the 1970s to distance itself from the pedophilia and pederasty movement, with whom they shared inextricable ties until that point, purely as a self-serving (though effective) public relations strategy.

My point was that - unlike real oppressed groups such as blacks and women - history is replete with homos who rose to pinnacles of society in every category of measure, provided that they exercised a little discretion about their sexual predilections (just like heterosexuals had to), a luxury that was not available to blacks and women who wanted to avoid or escape worse oppression and discrimination.

How many actors or writers or public servants or whatever profession you care to name from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s have we learned were homos (posthumously or otherwise)? And yet they died rich, or famous, even beloved, and with blown-out sphincters nonetheless. i.e. exercising a little discretion about their deviant paraphilias didn't prevent them from engaging in it.

Take Rock Hudson, for crying out loud. We would never have known that Rock Hudson was a homo, except that he died of complications resulting from a blown-out sphincter that made it extremely difficult NOT to come out. There are surely thousands upon thousands more who achieved notable successes personally or professionally that we may never know about.

Do you know of any blacks or women who reached any noteworthy successes, all the while they were concealing the fact they were black or female? Nope.

Thus there could be no sane comparison between the plight of homos and any of the aforementioned groups who suffered REAL oppression. There are only contrasts, mostly glaring ones.

As for what's wrong with America, I'm sure homosexuals enjoy much more acceptance in progressive countries like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and other cultural melting pots. America is not a culturally diverse and tolerant society? Puh-leeze!


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 1:20:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defending the right to express hate is the most important of all?
Defending the right to express unpopular ideas is the most important of all. No one needs to defend "popular" ideas. It's minority positions that need defense.

quote:
Try making smart remarks using words like the N word
The "N" word? Do you mean Netherlands? Narcotic? Nancy? It's amazing someone in this day and age is prissy enough to dance around a string of characters.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 4
> "Sorry but free speech wasn't designed as a way to defend idiots who want to run around calling people a fag."

For what do *you* think free speech was designed?

The OP was right. The more unsavory the majority finds an idea, the more violently we should protect the right to express it. Otherwise "free speech" becomes a meaningless facade.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 4
> "I guess you are down with protecting neo nazi's right to hate just about everyone "

Of course. It's their right. As long as they don't translate the opinions into criminal action (or incitement to criminal acts), they're not hurting anyone.

The rationale is really very simple. Let me walk you through the logic. Take two hypothetical, contradictory ideas. Which of the two is the "better" one? Eventually, society will decide on its own...but how can it, if both ideas aren't allowed free expression? If the unpopular idea isn't voiced, it never has a chance. If its voiced, but inferior, then society won't adopt it anyway.

Let me point out that pretty much every ideal we hold dear today was once extremely unpopular-- some you've had once gotten assaulted or killed for publicly voicing. If we didn't have free speech, things like woman's suffrage, religious tolerance, etc, would have never taken root.

Free speech is nothing more than the democracy of ideas in action. Banning unpopular speech is equivalent to an election in which only one candidate is allowed to run.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Society as a whole and it's members should have the ability to determine reasonable from unreasonable..."

They have that ability. It's done by allowing people to express even the most unpopular of ideas, then either accepting or rejecting them.

It's a far more enlightened path than the Medieval practice of jailing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

> "...without having to blindly support even the most ridiculous opinions"

Your confusion lies in the belief that allowing someone to express their opinion equates to your "supporting" that opinion. It does not.

And by the way, I'm not an admin. I'm merely one of the many who author a blog here.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When said person rejects that idea and comes out denouncing it, then gets told he shouldn't speak out against it because it is the other persons freedom of speech to say it,"
The original reply didn't attack the OP's idea; it rejected his right to use an unpopular word. Then you chimed in, saying certain ideas were just too offensive for free speech, and that voicing them should be illegal.

If you've changed your mind about all this, then by all means speak up. No need to keep beating a dead horse, right?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "Saying I said it ought to be illegal is what YOU twisted it into"

Your exact words were, "there should be a law against gathering in a public place and shouting white power and sneering at blacks...."

That's pretty hard to misinterpret. It mentions words only. It said nothing about actions , such threatening people by burning crosses on their lawn.

If you're backing down from your original position, simply come out and say so.


RE: Michael Bay
By Hase0 on 12/7/2007 12:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is exactly what happened in this case, user A uses an offensive term, user B is offended and says hey you are an ignorant ass. User C says hey you can't say that to him, it's his right to speak his mind.


Actually yeah it is freedom of speech, since person C was simply stating his opinion which was "hey I don't think you should be saying that" more or less. It was simply his opinion no one actually enforced it, and there is no reason why you should take it as fact or law.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 3
You're wrong, that's exactly what it is meant to protect.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Saddly, yes it is... Unfortunetly once you start down the path of saying "morally unacceptable speach is now illegal" you run into a certain issue... Who defines morally unacceptable? Certainly I don't think *ANYONE* posting in this forum would agree with Adolf Hitlers idea of morally unacceptable. And no, we can't just sit here and say "well that will never happen again so it doesn't matter". The germans at the time they ELECTED Hitler didn't think he would actually do the things he did, yet look at history.

As distasteful as such speach is, it's critical that we allow people to prove to the world exactly what the quality of their character is.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "What makes the right to express something like I think gay people are horrible, more valid than saying I think the Jew's are horrible? "

Nothing at all...which is why both should be equally protected.

> "50 years ago you could have tied a gay person to a tree and beat them to death "

Surely you can distinguish between expressing an opinion and engaging in assault and murder.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
While I actually don't care about the issue much personally, for arguments sake let's pretend I'm dead set against allowing gay people to marry based on religious grounds. Obviously there are posters here that would take such a position as expressing dislike for gays...

Does this mean that my stating "I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry because homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ/Mohammad/whoever" is a crime? If it is a crime then what punishment do you propose? Should I be jailed for life? Does this mean then that freedom of religion also no longer applies to me and my (specifically in my case) fellow Roman Catholics (anyone following any christian faith or Islam, please count your selves as being in the same boat as me)?

If that is the case then what relgion will the state officially sanction as being legal? Will everyone have to become athiest? It's possible as most of the major religions in the world do happen to condem homosexuality...

Brilliant savage, just brilliant.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Some people consider it to be quite equivilent... I once dated a girl that was appauled by the fact that I was very appathedic about the idea of gay marriage. Got grilled about "well what if you have a child that turns out to be gay"...

Savage, you have a very very bad habbit of thinking that whatever you think is right, and that everyone in the world just sees things your way. Big shocker here, there are people out there that equate "gays should not be allowed to marry because it goes against the teachings of Jeasus Christ and basic morality" with hate speach. If it was up to them, this would be a crime punishable with time spent in prison. Thankfully the founding fathers of my nation are quite a bit smarter than both them and you.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, your last paragraph just proved my point... Thankfully, as a US (and Italian) citizen have the freedom to be a Roman Catholic, and the legal freedom to either beleive what I'm taugh wholly or selectivly. If you don't like it, then well that is your problem because I can't be prosecuted for being religious.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where does hate for gays come from? the religious teachings that tell people it's wrong. Thats where 99.9% of hate comes from, religion.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 3:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
Right, now show me where I said we have to ban all religion?

That's where the concept of right and wrong, morality originates from.

You've taken a simple statement of opinion and turned it around to try and say I feel religion should be policed.

That's called pulling suppositions out of your ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you ban or attack free speach, by default you ban or attack freedom of religion, and then all of our basic freedoms. What you don't understand is free speach (i.e. defending peoples rights to gather up in a square and shout "white power") is the foundation of all of our basic freedoms. With out it we have no freedoms.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 4:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is a point at which people should draw a line and decide not all ideas are worth being defended."

Who decides which ideas are acceptable, and which you should be jailed/assaulted/killed/whatever for speaking? You?

> "I would like to see how far American free speech actually goes if someone were to organize an al-queda rally and see what the reception is."

And a hundred years ago, you'd see an even worse reception for a civil rights rally or a gay rights parade. By your own logic, that means that neither of those two ideas are worth defending.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 4:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
And you think in 100 years we will be having an-queda rallies and neo nazi marches that are considered a good thing by the majority?

If so that will mean that our society at a whole is not what it is now.

Any given society dictates what is and what is not acceptable in it in it's given state. In ours you are going to be pretty hated for organizing a neo nazi march or an al-queda rally. That doesn't make it right for anyone ever to go and harm said neo-nazis or al-queda supporters, It might mean that there should be a law against gathering in a public place and shouting white power and sneering at blacks.

You are comparing extremist examples of persecution from other societies to reasonable blocking of something society as a whole deems unacceptable. Ideas that incite racial hatred, hatred based on sexual orientation, are not of any value to anyone, at best. At worst they incite acts of violence against those targets. I won't ever see a point in defending them.

As to expressing hate for the other rather smug poster in this conversation. That is personal one on one dislike of one person to another person, based on that persons behavior. A big difference from hatred toward a race or religion.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
As long as no specific threats are made, why not? Why would an al quida rally be baned short of rally members chanting about attacking specific targets? The only limitation where speach is not protected is specifically in the case where you are threatening specific harm, or where it actually endagners the lives of people. Short of that benchmark, you can say anything you want (as it should be).


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 4:47:02 PM , Rating: 1
If an organization is threatening by it's nature, IE it's fundamental goal is something harmful or illegal why shouldn't it be blocked. If the message is to kill yanqui infidels, or that the death camps need to be reinstated for the Jews, even if that isn't whats openly said but the ultimate goal of the organization. why is that a message that should be allowed to be spread.

There is a difference between blind freedom of speech and reasonable. If the underlying goal of an ideal is to cause harm or commit crime, it is of no value.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 4:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Al Quida it's self is a terrorist organization, I'm not sure what laws apply regard being specifically affiliated with a terrorist organization. Having a rally which does not specifically threaten anyone but does support an organization such as al quida isn't nessesarly illegal, nor should it be.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "you think in 100 years we will be having an-queda rallies and neo nazi marches that are considered a good thing by the majority?"

That's really what you're afraid of, isn't it? That people might *like* some of these unpopular ideas, and therefore you feel justified in repressing them.

You've just made the case for free speeech. The Majority always supports the status quo, and fights against any change. Freedom of speech and people daring to express unpopular ideas is why we no longer live in a 13th century society, with 13th century ideals. Because some of those ideas eventually took root, and changed society.

Society once believed that slavery and torture was appropriate, that heretics should be put to death, that those of differing races were to evil by default, that unwanted children or the elderly should be allowed to starve to death. Anyone suggesting otherwise would be quickly shouted down, or worse. Since the Majority had already decided which ideas were right and which weren't, there was no need to allow anyone to express a contrary opinion.

Thank free speech, or we'd still be living in such times.

> "Ideas that incite hatred based on sexual orientation are not of any value to anyone"

Necrophilia, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality are all sexual orientations. By your logic, speaking out against any of those should be banned as well. Starting to see the problem yet?

"But thats different!", you'll cry. "Those are bad, and homosexuality isn't!". Well at one time society thought the exact opposite. Which society was right? And if ours is...why did opinions change?

Ingrained in your attitude is the very essence of parochialism. You feel your own opinions and belief-set, the ones you hold right now, are all true, perfect, and incapable of any improvement. So why listen to any of those new-fangled ideas, when you're already got the perfect set already, eh?

Myself, I'm willing to listen to unpopular ideas. It doesn't mean I have to accept them. More importantly, I'm willing to let other people listen, and let them judge for themselves. That's what freedom means.

Why not try it yourself sometime?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "What defines something as a good idea or a bad idea is whether it supports the idea of harm to individuals or groups"

Exactly. Saying "homosexuality is bad" does't advocate harm. Saying "Let's go kill all those damn queers" does. The former is protected by free speech, the latter is not.

It's really very simple, isn't it?

> "If someone wants to speak out against pedophilia it is justified, pedophilia is illegal"

At one time, homosexuality was illegal and pedophilia legal. Had we followed your logic, we'd still be jailing homosexuals and allowing the rape of children, because no one would be allowed to speak out against it.

> "In the same turn if joe redneck farmer wants to marry his pony...let him have at it if it isn't causing anyone or anything harm."

Ah, but society has decided that bestiality IS harmful. It is illegal...and by your logic, you shouldn't even be allowed to say what you just did.

See? You're just digging yourself in deeper.

> "[homesexuality] does not cause harm to an unwilling party."

At one time, society believed it did. Their opinions changed...because people were allowed to disagree and speak their minds.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
No I see that you are arguing in a circular manner and quoting selectively to support your opinion.

You completely ignored the entire concept of what makes things right or wrong.

I explicitly stated that my opinion is that something wrong is determined by whether it causes unwanted and unreasonable harm to someone else. You chose to reinterpret my initial statement that society equates law with right and wrong as my belief.

You know I don't have much use for someone that converses with such a smug attitude as yourself, grossly twisting and manipulating others statements into their own version of it and putting out smug remarks about them "digging themselves in deeper"

I would have to suggest to perhaps get over yourself.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 1
> "You completely ignored the entire concept of what makes things right or wrong"

No, I specifically identified and addressed it. "Wrong" spech is that which directly advocates harm or criminal action. "Right" speech is anything that does not, no matter how unpopular or unsavory we find it.

> "You know I don't have much use for someone that converses with such a smug attitude "

I prefer it to simply shouting "idiot, "moron", and "asshole" as a certain someone has been doing.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 6:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
This is just painful to watch. Everyone else on both sides is arguing fairly intelligently, but Sir Potato is just getting torn to shreds. I don't think he even realizes how bad he's making himself look :(


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/11/2007 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I prefer it to simply shouting "idiot, "moron", and "asshole" as a certain someone has been doing.


Isn't that what I did? Good job backing me up.

Funny by your own dumb logic, I'm hurting the ideals of free speach by calling this guy an ass... Doesn't that mean he's hurting the ideals of free speach by calling homosexuals fags? Again good one.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who decides which ideas are acceptable, and which you should be jailed/assaulted/killed/whatever for speaking? You?


Well that's an easy one for me. If you joke about killing someone. Religion aside. Cause let's be honest; try and argue how this has been, is, or ever will be, an acceptable human ideal. I never said the guy should be jailed, killed or anything of the like. I just posted that he's an ignorant ass. And that I bet he's filled with even more ignorant information that he only has the balls to express online.

Now this other moron decides to defend him, yet another ignorant person. Why? Because the first poster had a right to free speech? No. Of course he has that right, I never debated it. It's the same right I have when I call both guys ignorant. Why did the second poster decide to argue? Because he obviously has nothing better to do than assume I'm knocking free speech. Spend your time elsewhere, arguing with people who enjoy arguing. I don't. I just meant to point out that the OP was an ass. I mean unless you don't think he's an ass. Cause then you'd be agreeing with him and you think it is funny to use slang that means to burn someone alive. Then you're an ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Because he obviously has nothing better to do than assume I'm knocking free speech."

When you say its not "OK" to use a specific word, or to state specific ideas, you're knocking free speech.

> "...to use slang that means to burn someone alive"

Nonsense. First of all, you've accepted an urban myth about the etymology of the word "faggot". Second of all, even if it did originally have that meaning, it no longer does. All words drift over time. At one time, the word "awful" meant almost the exact opposite of its contemporary meaning. So if someone says "gays are awful", does that mean they're really giving a compliment? The current meaning is what counts.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nah I never said it's not "OK". "

You said sarcastically, "I guess cause it's online and no one can trace you, it's ok to throw out a word...". That's a clear implication you felt it was not OK.

And that's a clear rejection of free speech, whether or not you realize it.

> "Haha, you're arguing that fag isn't offensive, nice"

I said no such thing. It's clearly perjorative, and I made that very clear. The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive. Stating it means "to burn someone alive" is simply incorrect. If it did mean that long ago, it certainly doesn't any longer. Words are defined by contemporary usage. Accept it, and move on.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 5:56:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You said sarcastically, "I guess cause it's online and no one can trace you, it's ok to throw out a word...". That's a clear implication you felt it was not OK.


WTH are you talking about? I said it's not ok WITH ME, that he said that. I never said, ban him from talking or posting. You don't even know what you're arguing anymore just stop. Again not about freedom of speech at all.

quote:
The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive.


Since when does the etymology need to be distinctively defined for it to mean something? Again you're arguing for the sake of arguing, which by all means is Ok for the forums and for the world, but it's not OK with me so I'll complain, sorry.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "WTH are you talking about? I said it's not ok WITH ME"...I never said, ban him from talking or posting

You implied it wasn't OK. Period. In any case, others followed your post with claims that free speech didn't matter, and even going so far as to say we should illegalize unpopular ideas.

Now, if you didn't mean to imply that, then have at it.

> "Since when does the etymology need to be distinctively defined for it to mean something?"

You've misunderstood. A word means what it means today. Etymology has nothing to do with it.

The word "fag" does *not* mean "to burn someone alive". If someone claims it does, then they're referring to a highly questionable version of etymological origin, which has zero bearing on current usage.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:49:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact remains that the etymology of the word faggot is not definitive.


quote:
Etymology has nothing to do with it.


You brought it up and two posts later said it had nothing to do with it... brilliant.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "You brought it up and two posts later said it had nothing to do with it... brilliant. "

I didn't bring it up. I replied to the person who did to demonstrate it wasn't relevant.

Seriously, are you intentionally trying to be dense, or did you just misread the thread?


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 12:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
You said I couldn't find it an offensive word because it isn't proven where the word comes from. You then later say, that has nothing to do with it. So can I find it an offensive word again? Pls tell me, cause I'd like to know.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 2:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "You said I couldn't find it an offensive word because it isn't proven where the word comes from. "

Lol, I said nothing of the sort. I suggest you reread the postings. Perhaps you confused my original reply to SavagePotato with one to you.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 4:50:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The word "fag" does *not* mean "to burn someone alive". If someone claims it does, then they're referring to a highly questionable version of etymological origin, which has zero bearing on current usage.


Define it for me please. Please define the origins of the word, followed by it's current meaning, and also explain how the current mindset of the people who use the word, is in no way shape or form under the same mindset of the Known origins of the word, aka causing harm towards homosexuals.

quote:
When you say its not "OK" to use a specific word, or to state specific ideas, you're knocking free speech.


How is that knocking free speech btw? So it's impossible for me to believe in free speech, and be offended by what someone says? Please explain that one to me. Cause free speech means the ability to speak freely, and your clear definition: Being allowed to say anything without offending someone. I take it your some random barely religious white dude that's never had to feel the pains of any sort of real racism. Get off your high horse, and maybe admit you had some problems with another poster's ideals on free speech but that you have no basis to argue with me being offended by the OP's post.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 5:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Please define the origins of the word, followed by it's current meaning"

Why not simply admit you misunderstood the entire debate? My position was crystal clear from the start. Yet you've consistently managed to misinterpret the plainest of English, and wind up believing I said the exact opposite of what I actually did.

As I said earlier, perhaps you misread a post. But its pretty hard to misinterpret statements like "the word fag is definitely perjorative" as "fag isn't an insult". It's even harder to convert "the origin of a word isn't relevant to current meaning" into "if we don't know the origin of a word, it has no meaning at all".

> "How is that knocking free speech btw?"

I don't know how much clearer I can make the explanation. When you state someone's use of a word is "not OK", then you're implying they have no right to use it. Changing your statement to "not OK with me" is a wholly different meaning...but that wasn't the original statement.

Now, if your original post was simply unclear and you didn't mean to suggest such, then this discussion is moot. If you want to be offended at the OP's speech, have at it. I'll fight to the death to defend your right to do so...and his right to offend you.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/7/2007 5:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped debating the issue yesterday because I very quickly got the idea that littlebitstrouds is more continuing to argue based on an assumption that we're somehow trying to defend gay bashing which is what neither of us were ever trying to do. In fact, I personally didn't jump in until certain other hot headed posters started making sweeping statements about how such speech should be illegal, a rather distasteful idea to me.

So, to littlebitstrouds... I guess if you want a clear statement of our position here... Gay bashing an prejudice is wrong, but that doesn't mean we should make the words that express gay bashing and prejudice illegal. That's all that is being said really. I think everyone just got a little too carried away with their arguments.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/7/2007 7:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll fight to the death to defend your right to do so...and his right to offend you.

Basically it boils down to so being so noble haha. What an ass. Go waste someone elses time pls.

Next time you write any kind of opinionated piece... I'll be there to make sure you type out... I think *statement*. Cause usually it's implied that any opinionated statement is an admission of one's own beliefs, otherwise there'd be a footnote. Sorry let me make that more clear for you: I think it is usually implied that any opinionated statment is an admission of one's own belief. And I think that otherwise there'd be a footnote.


RE: Michael Bay
By Locutus465 on 12/6/2007 5:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
Can't speak for masher2, but I didn't join in until Savage decided to start railing against free speach hard core. I completely agree that Homophobia is wrong, but just because that's how I feel doesn't mean we should start talking about making such speach illegal (this is what savage has basically been rallying for this whole thread).


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New ideas are always unpopular. If you ban unpopular speech, you ban anything and everything that could possibly advance society.


Didn't know hateful behavior advanced society. Good to know. Get back on topic, we're calling the OP an ass... please please please argue against that idea. No, don't pick apart how, or why we did it, express why you think he isn't.


RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Didn't know hateful behavior advanced society."

You've missed the point. Any idea which differs from society's current view is unpopular. By definition. If you ban the expression of unpopular ideas, you ban all social progress. There's no way to say, "let's ban the 'bad' new ides and let the 'good' ones through". It just doesn't work that way.

> "Get back on topic..."

The original topic, as defined by you yourself, was that it was "not OK" to use certain words. If you no longer hold that position, then we're in agreement.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "people are intelligent enough as a society to decide what kinds of ideas ought to be shot down for being promoted"

They are? That's why they were shooting down ideas like "slavery is bad" and "we ought to let women vote" not that long ago? And why society in certain other places is still shooting down ideas like freedom of religion and education for women?


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/2007 6:52:58 PM , Rating: 1
You are seriously comparing modern day north American society to the same society that instituted slavery, or preventing women to vote.

Apparently you haven't bothered to look at just how far things have progressed in the last 50 years in the way of tolerance. This is a totally different age, one where information is exchanged instantly around the world. Enlightenment is spreading, more slowly in some places than others.

If we need such severe training wheels at this point that we cannot make a judgment that something like pedophilia isn't something we want advocated openly then we are going nowhere.