Oh-kay, you want a long post war, fair enough. First of all, Jari's reply is mandatory pre-reading as he clarifies a point I thought everyone already understood, but you can never be too careful.
Ah, that would lend them a convenient win-win situation, wouldn’t it? Of course, the ad is meant to appeal to whomever, so if those people think it is clever, mission accomplished. But when the other side claims it’s offensive, well no problem, because it was just a joke, right? They should lighten up!
There's no pleasing hyper-sensitive people, because there'll always be
someone offended by your actions. For example, I'm offended that you're making such a big fuss out of me thinking people should chill over a goddamn
joke. Does that mean you should shut up to avoid potentially offending me?
Again, I’m not seeing why that should be justification. If tobacco companies showed their consumers dying in hospitals from lung cancer, would that be funny, because it’s true?
How about making the dying people into caricatures who comically take one last swig off the cigarette, look at the camera, then say, “I’d die for that.â€Â Then fall down dead. Ah, it’s so funny, because the guy chose to smoke all his life, and he died, ha.
If you consider this out of context because cigarettes kill while posting pictures of your girlfriend’s naughty bits doesn’t “harm†anyone, try looking at it from another perspective.
Both take otherwise tragic real-life situations and try to put a humorous spin on them, all for the sake of getting into your pocket, even though of course it means keeping the travesty going.
Of course, in my example, most people can actually see the tragic side to the story, so it won’t quite work as well as hiding the tragedy in an empty meaningless shallow relationship.
Fine, I retract my statement, changing it to "it
wouldn't be funny if it
wasn't based on something true". There, was it worth wasting so many words on correcting a grammatical technicality? Also, who are you to judge whether carrying around pictures of your girlfriend's naughty bits are "tragic"? My last girlfriend was really into things like that, and the fact that a guy has pictures of such things implies the girlfriend went along with it. "Tragic"? Not all people have to conform to
your opinions on proper behavior, you know. You've never thought "I wish she wouldn't bother me with this while I'm trying to play this game", then good for you. You are clearly the epitome of human male evolution. All hail and all that.
I’m not laughing at their ads because it’s a personal offense. Why is it personal? Why wouldn’t it be?
I think you just illustrated the problem I have with this kind of conflict better than I ever could have.
I’m the target of that ad, aren’t I? I’m the one they want to buy their products. So, doesn’t that suggest somehow that they must have tailored that ad for me? So, doesn’t that suggest that they think I’m a self-righteous male-supremist prick who wouldn’t know a meaningful relationship if it bit me on the ass? I sense some friction!
Just like
this ad suggests that you're a furry, deceitful caffeine-addicted canine? They're not suggesting you're a sandwich-stealing thief, they just want you to buy Pepsi. And you're probably more likely to do it, because you saw their ad and thought it was funny. So why exactly is it so offensive when you replace a trick-filmed dog with a caricature of John Doe? Or do you perhaps think it's made to accurately depict their expected customer? Reality check please.
Personally I'd rather think they were trying to save themselves some trouble by removing all the uptight people from the list of potential future customers. "We'd hate to get people who'd get offended by something like this calling our tech support later on."
I pity Sony for thinking people would have a sense of humor instead of trying to find insults in everything. I have in my days seen quite a number of ads featuring stupid men, are you suggesting I should be offended by those as well because they suggest that
I am stupid?
Hark! For me to consider their ad a direct insult to my character and intelligence must mean I am too sensitive! After all, I’ve never had a problem with Nintendo’s ads or Microsoft’s ads, even though I don’t even like Microsoft, so of course it’s my own sensitivity that would cause an issue out of the blue where none had been before.
And yet, millions of others noticed this same level of offense and one guy even found it worthy of mentioning in an article.
And just how does the fact that "millions" of others were offended weaken my point that people are too easily offended?
Also I don't know why you start naming company names as counter-examples. I don't believe I ever bothered with the source of the ad in my post, nor does it matter.
if you shun this joke and claim "I would never treat my girlfriend like that", you're probably either a) lying
Well, obviously not in my case.
Well,
obviously not.
or b) haven't been in a long-term relationship.
Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant. Are you actually suggesting that all long-term relationships involving male gamers must somehow, at some point, include a stage where the male posts stickers of his girlfriend’s naughty bits on his day-to-day tools? I’ll give you grace in the issue of “pointless†questions, only because there usually is some point where both sides have some tussle and feel the other side’s questions/issues are pointless. But I’m not sure why encouraging them to “escape†from it is more responsible than encouraging them to work it out.
Wake-up call. Most long-term relationships involving anyone at all sooner or later involves a stage where one party would rather do something else than cater to the other party. This is not something I'm "suggesting". Of course not
yours. Just, you know, lesser folk's. And also yes, a lot of relationships are quite sexually active, and giving your partner something erotic to keep with him/her while you're apart can be an effective way to keep it that way. The fact that
you would never do something like that is irrelevant. If you're really that concerned about how companies hypothetically think of you based on the literal content of their ads, then at least be thankful they regard you as someone competent enough to be able to get a girlfriend. That's actually quite a compliment, considering the average gamer.
There are extremely few "perfect matches" out there, live with it.
Oh, I certainly live with it. I just don’t try to turn it into a comical situation to extort money from people.
Ah yes, "extorting" people. Good one.
Bet you if the ad had featured women using PSPs in similar, slightly sexist ways, there wouldn't be a beep worth of complaints
Again, not the issue.
#1: No, I wouldn’t care if people attacked me in the same way. Why? Because I myself can handle it. I decided on my own to simply ignore it. Others may feel bad for me, just as I would feel bad for them being attacked, but because I can handle my own attacks means I am a hypocrite?
#2: That’s not the issue; my anger doesn’t stem from them attacking one group or another. It stems from them assuming I am clueless to the concept of a meaningful relationship, then trying to put a happy spin on that to get into my wallet.
On the contrary, criticism founded merely in the
target of the "attack" is quite an issue indeed, closely related to the "is this offensive or not" issue. I'm sorry if my debating several aspects of the topic in the same post confused you.
#1: It's very good that you can handle it, you are obviously a very mature and sensible person. So why is it you so obviously cannot handle the
current situation?
#2: I see no difference; you're just flipping the conflict from the larger "men offending women" to "sony ad offending men". Or more specifically, your anger stems because you perceive it as an attack on
you. Is your self-confidence and self-image so fragile that you cannot even handle one ad
possibly being based on some company's marketing executive's
possible view that if taken to the
extreme would imply that "men are clueless to the concept of a meaningful relationship"? I mean I think the "offensive to women" issue is extreme already, but your issue seems downright theoretical by comparison.
Yes, I used my girlfriend (when I have one) as an example to relate to the situation, but the issue here is personal. It isn’t about the attacks they made to them, it’s about the ways they offended me.
To be perfectly honest, did I even mention your name in my last post, Mr. Clean Slate? You happened to make a very good example of people overreacting over small things, which is something I see all the time in the feminism camp (who are riled up about
this very ad too, imagine that). But fine, you feel that I was referring to you specifically, I might as well have. Most of the arguments are identical, with the only small change being that instead of being insulted by the slightly sexist tone against women in the ad, you're insulted that that somehow implies that
you're sexist. Did I miss anything? And how does that negate my issues against ultra-sensitive people intensely allergic to anything not politically correct? I'm still trying to figure out whether you're writing this because you're actually upset at being considered "sexist", or whether you just appreciate the chance to assert that
you are of course better than everyone else.
Signing off; I'm getting too old for this.
Show Posts
) is what will continue to execute (with normal, parallell execution) after the init scripts are complete. That is why many instances of script 0 end in two RET instructions, which signify an empty default script. The second RET marks the end of the default script, at which the entity will simply begin to do nothing at base priority (the priority is still busy, it just doesn't do anything useful).
script 3 finished (continued script 1)
For reference though:
£££
In contrast, the people who started work one month later than me have higher salary than me, and will probably remain that way... Grr! 
