• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

No Safe Spaces by Adam Carolla. 45% RT critics vs 99% audience. IMDB 8.2

At this point I honestly don't trust the audience scores just as much as I distrust the critic ones. Seems like both sides will always go the complete opposite of the other just out of spite and not on the merit of the work itself.

I'm a general supporter of freedom of speech, but some people also seem to think that should give them carte blanche to intentionally offend people and not suffer any consequences in terms of those people exercising their own freedom of speech to insult and criticize them openly. It goes both ways.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
RT in a nutshell.

vbpoxYY.png
 

-Arcadia-

Banned
Every time.

Since the discussion shifted to this, these audience scores have also been doing a good job of helping me both avoid SJW shlock, and find great stuff to watch so... 🤷‍♀️

I'd get that argument on Metacritic. No signs of intelligent life detected and whatnot. Whatever RT has going on though, seems pretty good.
 

-Arcadia-

Banned
I'm a general supporter of freedom of speech, but some people also seem to think that should give them carte blanche to intentionally offend people and not suffer any consequences in terms of those people exercising their own freedom of speech to insult and criticize them openly. It goes both ways.

Nobody is arguing this. Only that making a single off-color joke or comment, whether on purpose or mistake, shouldn't get you expelled from society, effective immediately.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
At this point I honestly don't trust the audience scores just as much as I distrust the critic ones. Seems like both sides will always go the complete opposite of the other just out of spite and not on the merit of the work itself.

I'm a general supporter of freedom of speech, but some people also seem to think that should give them carte blanche to intentionally offend people and not suffer any consequences in terms of those people exercising their own freedom of speech to insult and criticize them openly. It goes both ways.

Journalists have a responsibility to report objectively and without political influence. The public have no such responsibility, and the audience score juking is in direct response to the journalists doing it first. One precedes the other and they are not equivalent. It’s another case of attacking vs. defending and lazy both sidesing ignores the greater culpability of the attacker.

On free speech, the point of it is that there shouldn’t be a higher power deciding what is and is not acceptable to say, no matter who is offended, because all higher powers become corrupted in time. Technological change has allowed social media corporations to supplant government as authority, and because they are corporations, they follow the whims of the mob, and the mob is therefore currently a higher power by proxy. This is compounded by modern equality and inclusion dogma providing a path for ideologues to infiltrate these corporations which they don’t actually contribute to and otherwise have no place being a part of. The game has changed and we’re no longer dealing with the traditional free speech problem.
 

Anki

Banned
I am not from US but I like listening to Jordan Peterson and Shapiro, especially Peterson, I will have to watch this when it comes out to streaming media.
 
Top Bottom