kangarootoo Comments

Page 1 of 341

  • Call of Duty: WW2 threat of sexual violence scene modified in Australia

  • kangarootoo 19/10/2017

    I'm actually surprised at the overall balance of comments in this thread, weighted towards reading and understanding the article, and demonstrating a balanced view. Well done comments thread.

    Something that some on this thread should understand, is that ratings systems like the BBFC exist because the population want them to. And the BBFC do an excellent job of consulting with the general public regularly, and they update their ratings criteria regularly in response to those consultations. They don't do a damned thing "on their own", and it is a complete mistake to believe that anyone at the BBFC "wants" to censor anything. They think very carefully about limiting a film or a game in any way, and work hard to apply the ratings criteria evenly across the board. I've met with BBFC staff in the past, specifically regarding game ratings, and they understand games very well indeed (just in case anyone was of the impression they are dusty old morale police, who dislike video games and young people, etc).

    Complaining about ratings bodies in the UK or Australias as if they are some off-world dictatorship is like complaining about tax as if it is some dragon sleeping on a pile of stolen gold. Ratings bodies are of the people for the people. By all means you may not agree with them, but you have to accept that you are simply of a differing opinion to the majority of other people living in your democracy.

    As you were.
    Reply +2
  • Elex review

  • kangarootoo 18/10/2017

    I've always had a soft spot for Piranha Bytes. Gothic 1 and 2 were really rather special at the time. 3 not so much. Risen 1 and 2 were again sort of rough at the edges, but nearly drew me in. I haven't touch Risen 3 yet.

    I agree with the sentiment of the review, that if they had more time and money, they might really nail it.


    On a tangent, this chat reminds me of a bit of "Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning". This RPG that popped up one day in my PS+ monthly games list, seemed very generic at the outset, but turned out to be really well executed in so many ways. It was like it had almost no new ideas, but all of the RPG standards were done really really well, and suddenly it was 60 hours of play later. Always liked that game.
    Reply +4
  • CD Projekt Red: "This approach to making games is not for everyone"

  • kangarootoo 18/10/2017

    @Paul_Denton

    "If you want to push the envelope and do something innovative, you can never know beforehand if it will work or not"

    I completely agree.


    "For example they wanted to have an advanced horse AI, but after spending months on it they had to scrap it because it didn't work for various reasons."

    In the previous example the figure given was 6 months. Now you're just saying "months", which could be 2. If it was indeed 6 months spent prototyping in your example, I stand by my assertion that is too long, and somebody should have been able to measure the confidence of reaching a satisfactory conclusion, in an ongoing fashion, and killed the feature earlier.


    However, the other detail that is missing from your example is what "a variety of reasons" is. It could have been cancelled because it was decided later there was no market for it, it could have conflicted with a new feature that was given a higher priority, it could be that work only really started 5 months into development and it was actually only being solidly prototyped for a month? I suppose it is even possible that the feature had promised to an investor or publisher, and the dev had to keep hammering away even when it was clearly not working out (which would then perhaps have ended with an awkward conversation).


    So I say again, 6 months spent prototyping a game feature, to then find that in isolation it simply "didn't work", is too long and is not representative of proper prototype planning.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 17/10/2017

    @Midfield

    It is great that you are passionate about small, original games. But your attitude about the games that other people like, is rather immature.

    Your comment about the negs, even more so.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 17/10/2017

    @Paul_Denton

    "In gamedev you can easily spend six months on a feature that you will have to throw out because it breaks something or proves unfeasible"

    Anyone who spends 6 months on a feature, which they then have to drop because it doesn't work or conflicts with something else in the game, seriously needs to learn about effective prototyping and decision making.

    6 months! I hope you were exaggerating for dramatic effect.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 16/10/2017

    There are two parts of this situations, both of which should be considered.

    1. There is a discussion about whether this is the right working atmosphere for human beings. As someone above said "If they are crunching 2 years ahead of release then something is seriously wrong with their management."

    2. Low morale directly affects quality, bank on it. Now CDP know their shit, and I would still hope that Cyberpunk will be amazing (even putting aside the human issues of point 1), but if people are overworked and feeling bad, their output will be worse.
    Reply +16
  • Government response to loot box concern is predictably non-committal

  • kangarootoo 17/10/2017

    "The responsibility appears to be passed to the Gambling Commission, while noting it is "keeping this matter under review"."

    Come on EG.

    The Gambling Commission is a part of the government. So it isn't that responsibility has been passed to the Gambling Commission, it simply is their responsibility in the first place, as there is no other part of the government that would deal with this.
    Reply +6
  • Ex-Uncharted developer alleges sexual harassment at Naughty Dog

  • kangarootoo 16/10/2017

    @MattEvansC3

    I wasn't aware of that distinction, and I am initially a little perturbed by it, though I suppose the reasoning behind the lower crime is the possible lack of malicious intent.

    None of which means that an act of sexual harassment in the workplace can't escalate into a criminal act, if as you say the intent to cause distress can be proven. Still, thanks for the info.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 16/10/2017

    @SuperSoupy

    I think Naughty Dog have chosen their words very carefully, for good reason.

    They have simply said that they have found no evidence. It is easy to read into that, as something nefarious, but if they truly have found no evidence (which is entirely possible even if the allegations are true) that is kind of all they can say as a statement of the facts.

    The problem I guess is that their statement can support all outcomes. They could be fibbing, the allegations may be untrue, the allegations could be true AND there is no evidence available to ND... conspiracy theorists and impatient people read into a statement like this because they want to fit the statement to the conclusion they have already formed far too early. Truth is, we simply have to wait and see what comes from what we hope will be proper and thorough investigations.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 16/10/2017

    @spamdangled

    "It's not a matter for the police. It's a civil law matter."

    Nope. Harassment is a criminal offence.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 16/10/2017

    @Pirederas

    "Personally I don't believe his claim"

    On the basis of no firm info either way, you've formed a conclusion already?
    Reply +11
  • The Invisible Hours review

  • kangarootoo 13/10/2017

    Bugger, I really want this, again in part to support the making of this kind of game.

    I think at £22.99 on Rift, I'm going to take a punt. I'll just imagine I spent half of that, and then when I play it I'll eat a microwave curry instead of a takeaway :)
    Reply +3
  • Are loot boxes gambling?

  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @Return-of-Jafar

    "Are panini football cards gambling?"

    Legally speaking, apparently not.

    Psychologically speaking, yes, clearly so.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @Norlo

    "Can we have a link which points to the proven connection then..."

    No you can't have a link because I made it up. I completely made it up, and I thought that my sarcasm laden statement made that very obvious.

    However, I am guessing that English isn't your first language, which is in no way an insult, just a supposition because sarcasm is the one thing that translates least easily. I was making a point about the other poster's lack of effort in expressing any sentient thoughts, but I guess my method wasn't universally clear. Sorry about that.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @shiftydave

    "Is there a proven connection? Are all these homeless people living in the streets, ex avid pokemon card collectors?"

    I'm going to say yes. Yes, there is a proven connection. And yes, ALL of them. All the homeless people, because of Pokemon cards.

    And I'll trust it to you to research the subject further like the big grown up you clearly are. Sound like a plan? Excellent.

    Or... you could just write LOL again. I'll understand.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @GreyBeard

    1. You started your post with "This is so fucking pointless". Whether you think it is reality or not, that is the dictionary definition of reductive hyperbole.

    2. "It's a problem that only exists because of a lack of self and/or parental responsibility."

    Some people describe gambling literally in those terms. You seem to be confusing the definition of gambling, with how we apportion blame.

    And again, whilst a discussion about what might be the greatest danger of conventional gambling is interesting, it is a leap to say that something isn't gambling just because it cannot suffer from what you have decided is the greatest danger.



    3. "You call my comments "reductive hyperbole", I call it keeping it real" - COME ON how are you not seeing the irony of that.

    "and lack of critical thought on the matter" AND THAT.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this is a subject that you have strong feelings about, and that this discussion is making you feel annoyed that loot boxes in video games are being viewed as seriously (with sincerity or not) as what you see as "proper gambling" and the damage that can cause. I suggest that emotive viewpoint is preventing you from viewing the issue critically.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @GreyBeard

    Well that was an uncharacteristic pile of reductive hyperbole.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @p_nut_uk

    "It's up to the parents to ensure their kids don't get carried away with these loot boxes."

    I would broadly agree with that, but the issue is one of information. Currently parents can (and arguably, should) rely on the PEGI rating system to tell them about a game, and if they are the kind of parent that gives a shit, they can find out more detailed info on the PEGI website.

    Currently, loot boxes fall outside of the definition that allows PEGI to consider them within their rating, and so parents don't have the information they need to act as you and I agree they should.
    Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    @shiftydave

    First off, did you really laugh out loud at the thing you just wrote?

    Second, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study into whether frequent card/sticker collecting at a young age influences gambling habits later in life?

    I couldn't find anything, though this related article did turn up.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grown-men-collecting-panini-world-3483429

    Clearly your LOL suggests you don't see any connection between the two (though presumably you'd be mature enough not to deny a connection if it were proven).


    Personally, I consider sticker collecting of the type you're referring to, to in fact be gambling. The Panini company actively encourages gambling in kids, to their own profit. This is purely based on my own interpretation, same as many are applying in this discussion.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 12/10/2017

    "Loot box systems are gambling in my view," Griffiths says....

    ...as would anyone who understands what gambling is. Of COURSE they are gambling.


    "loot boxes are not gambling because they guarantee players receive something."

    This is probably why loot crate objects can never be bought directly elsewhere, as if a value was plainly placed on a thing, and then you got that thing from a crate that cost more than the direct purchase, that could be identified as a loss.

    I understand the logic behind not defining loot crates as gambling, but it feels like a loophole to me.
    Reply +4
  • Rime dev's VR murder mystery The Invisible Hours delayed in Europe

  • kangarootoo 11/10/2017

    Ooooooo, this is totally up my street. In fact this has bought my street, erected a theatre, and is running a non-stop production of The Mousetrap. Reply +2
  • Telltale's Batman uses photo of assassinated Russian ambassador

  • kangarootoo 09/10/2017

    This looks like a mistake to me. Someone has used the original image as reference, to get the pose right (which I know sounds pretty awful, but the artist may not have known it was a real corpse). The final artwork has then used the pose too literally, and has not deviated sufficiently from the original.

    It is a bad mistake, and the result of sloppiness, but the idea it was included intentionally is stretching plausibility.
    Reply 0
  • Machinarium developer's adorably unhinged Chuchel gets its first proper trailer

  • kangarootoo 06/10/2017

    I get like that when I can't have cherries too. Reply +2
  • Middle-earth: Shadow of War review

  • kangarootoo 05/10/2017

    I thought that second album syndrome happened because up until you make it big, you can have spent your whole life working up to that first album, and could have been refining tracks since you were 14 years old.

    Then you break through, and have to write a whole NEW album in less than a year, whilst also touring, and being interviewed by Richard and Judy.
    Reply +6
  • PlayStation boss Andrew House leaving Sony after 27 years

  • kangarootoo 04/10/2017

    I really don't understand trolling. Somebody acts like a prick, so everyone thinks they are a prick, and then they go "Ha, fooled you, I was only ACTING like a prick" and then they are pleased that people hit the neg button, because.... it confirms they exist?

    There is something quite lacking in a person, if they feel that being disliked is better than being ignored.
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 04/10/2017

    @OneManAndHisDroid

    "Rude health" is not at all an uncommon phrase, at least not for anyone over the age of 30. Whilst it isn't perhaps commonly used in conversation, it certainly isn't "archaic". I would struggle to think of 10 of my peers that wouldn't know what it meant.

    I dunno, education these days....
    Reply 0
  • Watch: Scorn may look fantastic, but its gameplay is utterly archaic

  • kangarootoo 03/10/2017

    What is wrong with your ears, man? At least twice you were killed by something I could hear was approaching you from the side.

    That said, this looks a bit laborious. The enemies don’t have any interesting behaviour to them, they just walk towards you and shoot. As a demo level, this doesn’t really set the right tone.
    Reply +3
  • Cuphead review

  • kangarootoo 02/10/2017

    @GreatnessAwaits

    "Funny how your sister site in Italy gave it a Recommended."

    It's... almost as if... they are different people.
    Reply +24
  • kangarootoo 02/10/2017

    @Gemini_73

    "Never got why folk were frothing over Cuphead."

    Turns out tastes vary. I know, right?

    No way you could have predicted this, so don't worry about being so baffled. It is confusing stuff.
    Reply +25
  • No One Lives Forever: The spy shooter that saved Monolith

  • kangarootoo 01/10/2017

    @Edvardas

    You registered to say that?

    You have issues.
    Reply +5
  • Shadow of War developer discusses the game's controversial loot boxes

  • kangarootoo 25/09/2017

    "It's frankly complicated."

    Not for me it isn't. I'll play the game, as supplied, and I won't be buying crates. Simples.

    ....now I have to go wash my mouth out for writing "simples".
    Reply +4
  • EGX 2017: Ten of the best games from the show floor

  • kangarootoo 25/09/2017

    "Hacking is actually a skill designed to protect, not to attack, he says"

    I suggest it is both and neither, depending on the individual. Just like graffiti can be art and also vandalism, often at the same time.

    Reductive generalisms, don't you love 'em.
    Reply +3
  • Steam counters "review bombing" by adding time graphs to game scores

  • kangarootoo 21/09/2017

    @bsolar

    "how do we reach consensus about what constitutes “appropriate” and what not?"

    By using our brains? I'm not sure I even understand the question.

    "Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, to me it seems you consider it an easy problem to solve."

    Ahhh. OK. I'll clarify. I don't at all think it is an easy problem to solve, but I think the alternative is an easy mistake to make. In fact the very core of what I am advocating is (in my opinion) more difficult, but better. I say that easily, but I'm not suggesting it is easy to do so. Eagerness to take the easy or understandable route is why the world has so many problems :)


    "It’s seems like reaching a consensus by “thinking about things” is not as easy as it seems"

    We can certainly agree on that.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 21/09/2017

    @bsolar

    "That’s a genius answer! Thankfully everyone in the world agrees to where this magical “appropriate point” lies..."

    Jesus fucking Christ, have we really reached a point where considering each case on its merits and making the appropriate decision for the given situation is dismissed as magical? It's called "thinking about things"! The whole world won't agree, but that AGAIN is some bullshit strawman exaggeration you just threw into the conversation.

    Here is a piece of info that might rock your world. The magical place where the whole world agrees on laws, ALSO doesn't exist. This very conversation is evidence of exactly that. You dismiss the idea that each case should judged on merit because not everybody in the whole would agree, but suggest the better system is one where we simply apply a set of rules created by humans, on which everyone in the whole world won't agree. HOW are you not seeing this?


    "Last I checked the worst in human history was most often done in the name of “the end justifies the means”"

    By stupid people that didn't think enough about stuff, and didn't consider each case on merit.

    Shall I tell what else has caused some of the worst events in human history? Dogmatic adherence to a set of rules, laid down as "good" in the face of the contrary evidence of a given individual case, and applied regardless of their suitability at the time. Throw in a spiritual angle, and you LITERALLY have religion.... is this where we have a discussion about the negative effect of dogmatic religion on human history, and you tell me it has all gone swimmingly?


    I know I am being a dick to you now, because I'm annoyed, and that is my bad. So instead of just replying to me like we're definitely on opposite sides, I simply ask that you digest what I'm saying and wonder whether or not you've talked yourself into a corner that you haven't really thought through. I realise that even this paragraph is going to piss you off, so here is an opportunity to be better than me :)

    Edit: Good grief, I was typing so frantically that I wrote "you're" when I should have written "your" (now corrected). That should give you an indication of how annoyed I was. I'm now off to hit myself with a nailed stick as punishment.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 21/09/2017

    @bsolar

    "And you could do better presenting your issues with my arguments. Am I supposed to take them to be "absurd escalation strawmen" because you say so?"

    Fair enough, I wasn't specific, so I shall be.

    "Furthermore, how far are you willing to go? Spurious DMCA takedowns are fine? What about hacking his computer? Sending threats? Stalking? Burning his car?"

    That. Distracting, exagerating, nonsense. The much overused strawman of internet discussions. Honestly this has been interesting, and stuff like that is beneath us.

    "Where does it end?"

    Same thing again. Hyperbole and scaremongering. To answer your question, it ends at the appropriate point in any givem case. This continued assertion that everything is a slippery slope, that any action leads to extremes, is the very core of a strawman argument. You rely on it too much.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @bsolar

    And please stop suggesting that people who disagree with you are advocating an "anything goes" policy here. They simply are not.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @bsolar

    1. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from recourse. I really, really wish people would get this notion out of their head that freedom of speech means you can say anything you like and nobody can tell you otherwise. It does not mean that, it never has meant that.

    2. Absurd escalation strawmen do not help you present a good counter argument, they undermine it. You can do better.

    As I perhaps have failed to communicate sufficiently, my whole point is that everything is dealt with on a case by case basis, on individual merit. The idea that we should take no action today because at some point between now and the end of time, the same means may be used for "evil" is a nonsense.

    Laws change, morals change, methods to combat "evil" change. If someone one day tries to use a DMCA to promote racism, the counter to that would be whatever else was reasonably available at that time for that given circumstance. I think you are forgetting why laws exist in the first place, and putting the word of the law above the spirit of the law. Laws exist to do good, because doing good is THE only goal that matters. To allow racism to go unchecked on the basis that one day racism might otherwise benefit from a loophole we create, is to take a ridiculous odds bet from now until forever. Occam's razor applies.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @TheDarkFurie

    "the more offensive you tend to find the word (specifically with how it will upset others if they heard you say it), the more likely you are to use it when feeling extreme pressure and needing release."

    This needs a source to be considered to genuinely be coming from a psychological viewpoint. It sounds like supposition to me - interesting for discussion, but nowhere near a place where it can just be delivered as fact.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @TheDarkFurie

    "which in some ways is worse than him just being a closeted racist who slipped up."

    In which ways?


    If someone's business is self publicity, then we might all find it distasteful if they pretend to be racist to get some hits. But to suggest that pretending to be racist, is worse then BEING racist.... I'm not sure you really mean that.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @Georgetm100

    "You can tell Pewdiepie uses that word in private all the time like its nothing. If he never uses that word, he would have used another one whilst under pressure. I can safely say that I would never use that word no-matter how much "pressure" I am under because I never use it in the first place. Under stress or pressure, new words you never use don't just pop into your head."

    You put it far more succinctly than I was able last week. Noted.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @bsolar

    Good and Evil are subjective human inventions. AND they are, as you point on, on a sliding scale.

    If you approach this from a perspective purely of principle, then you cannot stop injustice unless you are able to do so by Good. You suggest that any act that is not empirically good should not be committed, even if it is to fight a greater evil.... except... we already agree that there is no empirical good. So how do you define it?

    You define it in this case by declaring the action to be evil on the basis that it is not the correct application of copyright law, so NOW you are equating good and evil with lawful and unlawful.

    That sort of overly principled approach would leave slaves in captivity throughout history. Now of course I am not saying that copyright law is corrupt in the same way that slavery was. My point is that you are bogging yourself down in principles that not only make sweeping statements (one evil act is as bad as another) but also equate good and evil with current law (which of course changes all time time).

    My point is... FUCK all that, when it comes to combating racism. The ONLY thing that matters at the end, is what happens at the end. If by abiding by the sorts of principle you endorse, racism is allowed to flourish because it manages to be protected by the law, then what has been achieved in the end?

    When you say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I think you forget that your abiding principles are good intentions of your own. From my perspective, your good intentions (abiding by copyright law rigidly) lead to hell (a world where racist role models can continue unchecked). The only solution that we can really hope for, is to not stick rigidly to principles, but consider every case on its merits, and determine our actions by what works best in the given situation.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @bsolar

    Honestly, my feeling on this, is f*ck racism by any means. If DMCA was the only route by which the devs could stop their game being associated with someone who uses the word nigger as an insult, I have no problems with that.

    Bottom line is, not accepting a world where people hate on people of a different skin colour, is more important than the consistent application of copyright law. If you have to pick one, the choice should be obvious.
    Reply +9
  • Fans don't like Tomb Raider's awkward film poster

  • kangarootoo 20/09/2017

    @Calarand

    Whilst the pose is unoriginal, I'm not sure this poster is the culprit you think it is. As others have pointed out, the "looking moodily back over the shoulder" pose is used across the gender range in action movies.

    In this case, AV's bum is covered by suitable trousers, and mostly hidden behind text, certainly not the focus of the shot. Her chest seems to have actually been left alone (accepting that likely no part of this poster is as it was photographed), rather than being increased in volume (such as Kiera Knightley's was in the poster for the King Arthur film). And again, it really isn't the focus of the shot. Her shoulders and arms actually have some muscle structure on them, and you know that if it were one of "those" posters, any naturally visible muscle would have been smoother out rather than accentuated.

    I'm not at all saying that what you describe isn't all over Hollywood movie posters - of course it is. But I'm not sure this one qualifies, and I don't think it helps to pick it as a target when what you describe is clearly not visible in the image. Yet another original action movie poster? Guilty as charged. But yet another specifically tits and ass pose? I'm not sure the evidence is there.
    Reply 0
  • Dishonored: Death of the Outsider review

  • kangarootoo 19/09/2017

    I should get back to Dishonored 2 sometime. I stopped when a lost key bug (that occurred prior to them patching in start-of-level save points) would have lost me 5-8 hours of play. I think enough time has passed that I can go back without it annoying me :) Reply +2
  • Later this month, Elite players will fight the Thargoids for the first time since the nineties

  • kangarootoo 16/09/2017

    "The game also shines in VR with a HOTAS flight stick."

    This. It's the only way I play now.
    Reply 0
  • There's an ugly Call of Duty PlayStation 4

  • kangarootoo 15/09/2017

    There are only two colours for a console, white and matte black, the second being my personal preference. I've never seen a special edition or skin that looked better than those. Reply 0
  • PewDiePie apologises for racial slur

  • kangarootoo 13/09/2017

    @SamTheSeed

    "Someone trying to force an apology out of someone when they did nothing wrong"

    Which isn't what happened in this case, of course.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 13/09/2017

    @SuperShinobi

    "words that have no meaning and no relation to what's going on in the situation."

    But for someone who is not racist, shouting "nigger" in the middle of an argument is just the same.


    "Let's say for example dick, fattie, bitch, retard, nancy boy, loser or whatever, even the N-word. People might use those words without really meaning it."

    This is the bit where we risk splitting hairs, because I have to make what sounds like an empirical statement. Bear that in mind.

    When you say "without meaning it", I think you mean without fully meaning the hurt that may result. However, in someone gets annoyed in an argument and blurts out something they later regret, that something is still coming from a place that matters (my original point, about what is inside their head). If someone shouts "you old shit", they are showing that somewhere inside, they are ageist. If someone shouts "you fat cow", they are showing that (however much they may not like this about themselves), they are a bit weight-ist (if that is the word).


    "It seems he momentarily forgot that he was live streaming and forgot to think about what he said."

    So what? So he forgot to keep his prejudice under wraps? That is no defence at all.


    "If you play a lot of online shooters, the kind of language used there might rub off on you, even if you're not a bigot in real life"

    Honestly, I tend to think that only happens if someone already had latent views of that type, or they are a bit thick (or both). He doesn't seem particularly stupid.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 13/09/2017

    @SamTheSeed

    "You think impressionable little kids, whose brains won't be fully formed until they are 25 years old, and who look upto to KSI as a loved rolemodel... copy him because, they are a 'little bit racist'?"

    No. I don't think that.

    I think that copying him, revering him as a role model, internalising
    and normalising comments, MAKES them a bit racist. That is an important difference, which you have missed.


    "That's some stunning reading material for a Wednesday afternoon alright."

    This is the kind of sarcastic "wow, just wow" hyperbole that is beneath you. If you have an counterargument, then voice it. Nobody cares how incredulous you are at my comments, if you offer nothing to back it up.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 13/09/2017

    @SamTheSeed

    Why the need to create an all or nothing set of options?


    "Do you think all the little white kids who watch KSI on YouTube, repeat the N word because they are innately racist?"

    Yes, a bit. Yes.

    "Or, do you think there is an alternative possibility...OR... do you just want to crucify them"

    No, I don't want to crucify them, and your use of OR is unhelpful.
    Reply +2