101–110 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt the current administration is targeting gun dealers.
Regulations from previous administrations don't magically disappear at the end of their term.
This idea is about 20 years old already: VICEX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitium_Global_Fund
This is venture funding for edgy products that traditional VCs might not touch.
Why is esports listed as a vice-venture?
I get there are CS:Go tournies where people pretend shoot each other in a video game, but I don’t see how that is more damaging to people than sports like boxing or MMA. Idk, is there still a ‘vice’ sentiment that “video games turn kids into killers”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say they get addicted to porn, what does science have to do with what they say?
Science says that there is a distinction between the colloquial definition of "addicted" and the technical definition of a physiological / psychological addiction. Many people will also say that a delicious food, an entertaining game, or an enjoyable TV show is "addictive", but these do not actually constitute addictions either.
People with scientific backgrounds hypothesize all the time, and they have machines that can make brain scan images, but we aren’t very close to being able to measure addiction on a numerical scale.
The best we have is listening to people, maybe analogous to how we listen to people when they believe they are a different gender, etc. since there is no quantitative measure for ‘feelings’ (see Olympic male/female athlete controversies, et al.)
We may get there some day...
This idea is about 20 years old already: VICEX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitium_Global_Fund
VICEX is based on "sin" stocks. Casinos, tobacco, etc. already on the public market. This is venture funding for edgy products that traditional VCs might not touch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations from previous administrations don't magically disappear at the end of their term.
It’s not about the regulations, it’s about whether the executive branch chooses to enforce them and how much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s probably because there’s an actual gambling industry related to esports. Just like betting on horses at the track, or gambling on football, or whatever.
Afaik it's also a (the?) major source of funding for esports companies as well so if you're going in to the esports space then there's a very good chance you're going to have to dance with that devil at some point. Football at least - I don't know about horses - seems to be able to support itself off of viewership. Whereas the last dota tournament I watched had "Betway" at the start of its name.
My inclination is that VCs don’t particularly not-invest in successful “vice-driven companies” due to their moral compass, but rather due to the financial friction and PR risk-reward involved in doing so.
I feel like the article understates the point that, given the nature of vices, if the business turns out to be doing substantial harm and a media shitstorm hits, the VCs will absolutely be dragged into the mix and publicly shamed for contributing to the problem. When Juul was going through it’s recent implosion all the cigarette giants who were investors got name-dropped. When WeWork was in the news, SoftBank’s name was being dragged right next to it. And the media was sure to tie Uber articles to Saudi money.
Sure, some investments are bound to not work out for VC firms, but nobody wants to trash their firm’s legacy and reputation over blowback from the fickle beast that is public opinion on the internet and word of mouth.
There is still value in these vice industries and proper federal regulations still need to be figured out for things like Cannabis companies to operate like ‘real’ businesses.
Not all “vice” companies are equal and I think it will still take time to figure out to what level different types are socially acceptable and what restrictions to put in place to keep the good/bad balance in check.
I think the biggest win here is the marketing for Vice after putting together this $25M fund. This is totally on-brand for them, regardless of how business-viable these investments are. Plus, it’s not Vice’s own money they are playing with (which is good for them given their profitability struggles as a parent company). My inclination is that VCs don’t particularly not-invest in successful “vice-driven companies” due…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Help me out here, what am I wrong about?
> Sloth is considered a vice and playing video games fits right in there in the judgement of enough that it gets mainstream play. Citations needed. Your posts in this tree are full of weasel words and opinions passed off as common sense.
Or that people think that playing video games is for the lazy?
Someone specifically asked what vice video games would be (esports actually). I said sloth (being lazy) is what some would accuse them of. There is nothing weasel about that unless you set the bar so high that everyone must agree that something is a vice, in which case virtually nothing is.
Which is it? Is sloth not a vice? Or is playing video games not considered being lazy by a significant number of people?
There have been countless stories about video games promoting obesity (sloth, gluttony) or violence (wrath) or objectification (lust). I'm sure greed, envy and pride could all make an appearance if we tried hard enough.
Citations needed...nope. Accusations of today's youth being lazy and playing video games are abundant enough that if you can't find them you've obviously been playing too many video games.
> I can't tell if you think what you're saying is correct (and you're wrong) or if you think what you're saying is wrong (and you're still wrong.)
That's just rude and didn't contribute anything. You haven't made any argument other than I'm wrong. Have a point. I'm not going to play the citations game. Put forth a counterargument that is coherent and contributes to the discussion or move along.