Louis theroux personality Videos

+Marcello Capone good to know other ppl appreciate his ridiculousness. Another good one is Christian Jimmy. Praise His name lol

+Angry Dwarf I love that one as well mate.

in Manhattan yea.

+José Escórcio His "shiny happy Jihad" is pretty good mate. Go on Ari's website and listen to one of his podcasts with Rogan, where they dissect this exact special. I'm not a huge fan of Rogan's stand up, but that one was very funny.

yea like in a really creepy way... i listen to old OandA clips all day and lol at Jim on the show but wenever i see him in video form his mannerisms and just the way he looks nd acts creeps me the fuck out

I find rofag feminine

+Joey R. Lario nah, I was waiting for Joe to have a stroke though

creepy

get back to the real life and give up on all these stupid distractions

hahah!! Bert is right though, Rogan needs to have Roy Choi on his podcast

+Junior Sanchez theres no excuse for 360p..

dude its a podcast interview... do u really need it to be in super hd??

I will if you link the video.

How so?

+jaganmaster true. it looked to me like philly d put on the bitch hard.

No, it has a completely different meaning.

Because poop exists

That's true.  But isn't that just a another form of censorship only it just so happens to be one we agree with?  It seems to be just a matter of to what degree of censorship you are willing to accept.  For example, if they made a video game that provides children step by step instructions and tutorials on how to make pipe bombs in their rooms and then weaves it into a fun game of killing and bombing innocent people - the more you kill the more points you get.  Now some people may feel that isn't worthy of being censored but lets say some gov't agency feels it's too dangerous and they pass a law that forbids bomb making instructions to be depicted in games.  Just because it is illegal now, does that mean it should no longer be considered censorship?

+aylc8208 You can't reveal personal info without consent. That's illegal.

Yes it should. That is still absolutely irrelevant to the gamergate discussion.

This is where we get in to the shady area of trying to define what art is. Who is to say that something is or isn't art because in the end isn't art just a form of communication with the intent to invoke some type of emotion from the audience? One could argue that a video game called "the art of making homemade nuclear bombs," where it teaches young kids step by step how to make the best nuclear bombs in their homes (given that was possible), is art similar to the art or origami for example. This video game in the hands of kids is obviously immediately dangerous to others let alone the entire world. According to what you say above, shouldn't this be censored in some form?

Then it is no longer art. Try making that argument for a video game.

What about art that puts people immediately in danger?

Yes. One is something that immediately puts someone in danger. The other is art that someone finds offensive.

Isn't changing the offending parts a form of censorship?

Pulling it and changing the offending parts is different.

I'd have to agree, there may be a distinction there. Yet as you said above you don't believe even that should be pulled even though it is no longer art. Why?

Well. The entire premise of it. Something actionable against people would require real identifying marks about them, such as but not limited too, Their address, their company's address/job information, information about their family and friends. Hatred does not come close to being that. It in no way includes anything from actual peoples lives. You can disagree with the content until you are blue in the face, but nobody is in danger because the game exists, or because a piece of it exists. It is far different than say, Rebecca Watson advocating for Doxxing people and printing their names and contact information. Or say Anita Saarkesian "accidently" publishing a tweet with someones name and email attached too it.

In terms of a video game, who determines whether something is an actionable offense against people or simply artistic expression?

Actionable threats against people is different from art. But even then, i wouldn't believe it should be pulled from the world.

Or let's say a war video game that reveals the actual names and identities of CIA and high level military agents abroad?

That's interesting. I tend to agree that censorship of art is wrong. But how about a video game that teaches kids how to make a nuclear bomb at home step by step (given that was possible)?

I personally would accept it, even though I think it is absolutely deplorable. Art is art, and censorship is wrong.

I'm not a gamer but listening to this podcast made me a bit curious. I'm not saying censorship is good but was just curious on your viewpoint when you said 'censorship is wrong. period.' Is there any line that you would draw on a theme for a video game? For example, let's say someone developed a game called 'pedophilia' where the goal is to stalk, molest, and then ultimately rape and murder as many children as possible.