|
On April 09 2012 08:03 denzelz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:17 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 06:28 denzelz wrote:
Try selling the current gaming culture to corporate sponsors. Go ahead. Korean Starcraft was successful because it appealed to kids, adults, women, grandparents, male, female, fat, skinny, etc etc. You cannot put something on TV that only appeals to one particular demographic. Even the UFC had to branch out and embrace less violent rules, better storyline, etc to gain a foothold in the US. It took UFC more than 10 years to establish itself as intelligent and legitimate, and not just for broz. Starcraft faces the same challenge and every audience you turn away with the N-word or F-word, it's a loss. Really, really bad analogy, considering how bm Dana White is. So you disregard my entire point because of my analogy? Also, Dana White might be "bm" but I bet you he has never called anyone the N-word. Also, please try to run a company with your employees calling everyone niggers. See how far that gets you.
During Orb's employment, he did not use the n-word during his broadcasts for EG. So again, saying "please try to run a company with your employees calling everyone niggers. See how far that gets you." is another really, really bad analogy.
On April 09 2012 08:16 Eiii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:50 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 07:39 Eiii wrote:On April 09 2012 07:26 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 06:49 Lysenko wrote:On April 09 2012 05:29 ninazerg wrote:
Well, first off, when I started playing StarCraft, I wasn't comfortable with using the word 'rape'. Now I say 'rape' all the time while playing. The same goes with other words that I wouldn't have used before. It's part of the culture. Not just gaming culture, but the culture of the entire internet medium. What, so because other people are doing this you've decided to deliberately turn off the little voice of conscience in your head that says "this is wrong?" I mean, seriously, who lives like that? Oh golly. If you read my blog just a tiny bit more thoroughly, you'd realize that I'm talking about context. Whenever a word develops a particular connotation with an individual, it is done so through pattern of experiences. This connotation does not have to be the sole contextual limitation of the forementioned word, because, through a pattern of further experiences, the word can develop other connotations - thereby giving the word different meanings in different contexts or mediums. I never came to the conclusion that rape was okay. I came to the conclusion that it was okay to use the word 'rape' as part of a video-game vernacular. What makes your context trump everyone else's? Sure, you might not be offended by that usage of rape-- and that's fine, I think most people in this community don't mind it either. Same with orb's slurs-- they weren't a problem to him at the time, and they probably didn't bug his opponent too much either-- but as a representative of EG, they had to consider how his word choice would be seen from a more public perspective. I don't buy that sponsors didn't factor into EG's decision either, but I think it's ridiculous to say that EG shouldn't have made the decision to let Orb go to make some point about contextualized word usage and gaming culture and blah blah blah. They were worried about their public image if they chose to associate themselves Orb onboard, and that's fine. " What makes your context trump everyone else's?" This question is nonsensical for so many different reasons, but here are a few: - I never made an argument that my context trumps anyone else's - *I* don't have a context, contexts are circumstantial - I don't pick the circumstances in which context becomes relevant No, but you have a different take on certain situations than everyone else would. I should have phrased that as 'What makes your *perspective* trump everyone else's?'-- either way, just because using those words is alright with you in that context doesn't mean everyone would be alright with that. And EG has to consider how associating themselves with Orb would affect their public image, which means they have to consider how *everyone* would feel. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:50 ninazerg wrote:
Furthermore, if EG was worried about racism, they would let IdrA go. IdrA actually is a racist, saying things like "French-Canadians are idiots.", etc. If Mr. Garfield had simply said "I let Orb go because he lied about the issue when it was raised." then there would be no problem, but instead, had to go on some verbose rampage about the n-word. Having Idra on EG is hugely beneficial to them-- the tradeoff of potentially hurting their reputation by associating themselves with Idra hurts them less than the massive exposure Idra gives to EG and their sponsors helps them. Alex said that they told Idra in no uncertain terms that he had to stop being offensive and abrasive-- because since Idra is such a high-value player that it's worth it to try to 'rehabilitate' him rather than just dropping him to protect the organization's image. Orb was just a caster to them-- he wasn't going to bring any significant value that someone else couldn't. For someone who goes on so much about context, you seem to have completely forgotten to consider it in this case. Looking past that, though, I completely agree that Alex's apology post seemed disingenuous-- but that's a completely separate issue than the one you mentioned in your first post! I read it as complaining that dropping Orb because he frequently used context-appropriate but potentially-offensive language could suffocate the starcraft community and diminish the game's appeal, slowing it's growth. EG's PR reaction to the situation wasn't good, yeah-- but that doesn't change the fact that they had legitimate and understandable reasons to kick Orb in the first place.
EG can get rid of whomever they want, but that doesn't preclude me from saying "Hey, that's bullshit!", because it was. You missed my point, though, and are getting way off-topic by discussing Idra's value to the team versus Orb. The original post is me talking about the gaming community.
|
On April 09 2012 08:44 jeeeeohn wrote:
You're seriously trying to justify using the n-word? There is no context that's appropriate. The fact that "everyone does it" just means that's it's not appropriate, and people like doing things that aren't appropriate.
Actually, it makes so little sense that I won't go into it. Orb said bad things and got shitcanned. Gaming culture is pretty disgusting in itself, so I can't blame sponsors for wanting to steer clear of Orb.
Yeah... that's totally the point of my blog.
By the way, "shit" is a bad word.
|
On April 09 2012 08:48 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 08:44 jeeeeohn wrote:
You're seriously trying to justify using the n-word? There is no context that's appropriate. The fact that "everyone does it" just means that's it's not appropriate, and people like doing things that aren't appropriate.
Actually, it makes so little sense that I won't go into it. Orb said bad things and got shitcanned. Gaming culture is pretty disgusting in itself, so I can't blame sponsors for wanting to steer clear of Orb. Yeah... that's totally the point of my blog. By the way, "shit" is a bad word.
On April 09 2012 08:48 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 08:44 jeeeeohn wrote:
You're seriously trying to justify using the n-word? There is no context that's appropriate. The fact that "everyone does it" just means that's it's not appropriate, and people like doing things that aren't appropriate.
Actually, it makes so little sense that I won't go into it. Orb said bad things and got shitcanned. Gaming culture is pretty disgusting in itself, so I can't blame sponsors for wanting to steer clear of Orb. Yeah... that's totally the point of my blog. By the way, "shit" is a bad word.
You went from a cute recap of your BW games to going bonkers about the N-word. You use an analogy to the word rape. You say rape is okay within the context of video games. That's just not true. Your blog reads like you're making excuses for Orb.
Then you go off on some tangent about gaming culture in general. Gaming culture is full of vulgarity because it appeals mainly to twenty-something men who like feeling the adrenaline of a headshot and calling someone a fag. It's not going to work in North America, where our culture both demonizes and fawns over topics like sex.
You say his reason for canning Orb was stupid, when it wasn't stupid at all. He said the N-word (no matter the "context," for fuck's sakes), and was fired for it. Sounds like any business looking to maintain their dignity.
What was the point of your blog, anyway?
Also, no shit.
|
I completely cracked up imagining that hypothetical business meeting.
I personally think that Orb should not have been fired over the use of a single word, even for multiple instances.
But how EG manages themselves is not up to us.
|
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with EG on their decision to let Orb go. Being bm and having a reputation as such is one thing. Idra and Destiny get away with it, and are both great SC2 personalities. Orb wasn't funny or entertaining in his bm. He was abrasive, rude, and offensive.
EG made the claim they did, that they did it on a "moral highground" stance because, well, how the fuck else were they supposed to do it? Orb needed to be let go either way, and they picked the way that made both them and Orb look the best. It's politics and marketing, which are things that ALWAYS come into play when money is involved.
If you don't like it, then it's ok. I don't think anyone sane likes those things. If it bothers you that much, then that's ok too. You don't have to grow up yet.
|
On April 09 2012 08:16 Eiii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 07:50 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 07:39 Eiii wrote:On April 09 2012 07:26 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 06:49 Lysenko wrote:On April 09 2012 05:29 ninazerg wrote:
Well, first off, when I started playing StarCraft, I wasn't comfortable with using the word 'rape'. Now I say 'rape' all the time while playing. The same goes with other words that I wouldn't have used before. It's part of the culture. Not just gaming culture, but the culture of the entire internet medium. What, so because other people are doing this you've decided to deliberately turn off the little voice of conscience in your head that says "this is wrong?" I mean, seriously, who lives like that? Oh golly. If you read my blog just a tiny bit more thoroughly, you'd realize that I'm talking about context. Whenever a word develops a particular connotation with an individual, it is done so through pattern of experiences. This connotation does not have to be the sole contextual limitation of the forementioned word, because, through a pattern of further experiences, the word can develop other connotations - thereby giving the word different meanings in different contexts or mediums. I never came to the conclusion that rape was okay. I came to the conclusion that it was okay to use the word 'rape' as part of a video-game vernacular. What makes your context trump everyone else's? Sure, you might not be offended by that usage of rape-- and that's fine, I think most people in this community don't mind it either. Same with orb's slurs-- they weren't a problem to him at the time, and they probably didn't bug his opponent too much either-- but as a representative of EG, they had to consider how his word choice would be seen from a more public perspective. I don't buy that sponsors didn't factor into EG's decision either, but I think it's ridiculous to say that EG shouldn't have made the decision to let Orb go to make some point about contextualized word usage and gaming culture and blah blah blah. They were worried about their public image if they chose to associate themselves Orb onboard, and that's fine. " What makes your context trump everyone else's?" This question is nonsensical for so many different reasons, but here are a few: - I never made an argument that my context trumps anyone else's - *I* don't have a context, contexts are circumstantial - I don't pick the circumstances in which context becomes relevant No, but you have a different take on certain situations than everyone else would. I should have phrased that as 'What makes your *perspective* trump everyone else's?'-- either way, just because using those words is alright with you in that context doesn't mean everyone would be alright with that. And EG has to consider how associating themselves with Orb would affect their public image, which means they have to consider how *everyone* would feel.
I'm not sure whether its a question of perspective *trumping* other people's perspectives, but more a question of what kind of forum do you want to have - what kind of "society" would you want to live in. Should it be one in which people who find certain words offensive, and for sake of argument, also find them offensive *regardless* of context, dictate the level of free speech that every other member in the community can have? That's basically saying that all terms can only be used in the contexts as determined by the most sensitive members of the community, keeping in mind that each term may have its own group.
I think that's the point where it goes beyond personal preferences to being anti free speech; and its a slippery slope. Rape can easily be seen as a word that has a lot of negative imagery surrounding it, and female gamers may find use of such a word offensive regardless of context, or perhaps more likely when used in the typical gamer lingo of "I'm going to destroy you!". Are we going to take out a measuring scale and say, well its ok for you to be offended, because you are not as numerous as black gamers? I would think not; what is immoral is immoral, it doesn't matter how many people you make to feel terrible (just like we don't say its okay to openly discriminate against transgendered gamers simply based on their number). Therefore every commentator who says "rape" should be barred from commentating, every gamer who says it should be shunned, people who write that word in comments should be banned from their respective forum. Because we know, there is going to be a member of the community who finds that term offensive.
There are so many words with negative imagery surrounding them. The n-word only varies in the degree of its negativity. If one is prepared to make the argument that offending a few people is irrelevant, offending many people makes it immoral, then ok. But personally I find this argument hypocritical and quite unethical. If you truly care about people's feelings, and don't want to offend anyone, you are going to have to go to an extreme degree to prevent that from happening.
No one should be penalized for the idea that their words *may* be offensive to some, because they might find that context offensive. Because logically that argument would have to be extended to a ridiculous degree. It is only when words are deliberately used to be offensive, that people can be called out on it. And according to that idea of understanding the importance of context - they should only be deemed offensive to the degree that they were meant to be offensive - i.e. using the n-word in a moment of anger being taken only as a moment of weakness, not as a deliberate racist remark with the following overblown consequences.
Anyways I understand the EG needs to be careful of its public image argument. But I still think we should call out Alex Garfield and stand up for what's ultimately, to me, ethically right. Free speech is more important than potentially offending certain people. Or maybe my argument is terrible and I've been deluded by my readings of John Stuart Mill. Ah well I hope that provided something useful 
|
Fantastic world. Who's going to live in it?
![[image loading]](http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/728)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 09 2012 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 08:16 Eiii wrote:On April 09 2012 07:50 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 07:39 Eiii wrote:On April 09 2012 07:26 ninazerg wrote:On April 09 2012 06:49 Lysenko wrote:On April 09 2012 05:29 ninazerg wrote:
Well, first off, when I started playing StarCraft, I wasn't comfortable with using the word 'rape'. Now I say 'rape' all the time while playing. The same goes with other words that I wouldn't have used before. It's part of the culture. Not just gaming culture, but the culture of the entire internet medium. What, so because other people are doing this you've decided to deliberately turn off the little voice of conscience in your head that says "this is wrong?" I mean, seriously, who lives like that? Oh golly. If you read my blog just a tiny bit more thoroughly, you'd realize that I'm talking about context. Whenever a word develops a particular connotation with an individual, it is done so through pattern of experiences. This connotation does not have to be the sole contextual limitation of the forementioned word, because, through a pattern of further experiences, the word can develop other connotations - thereby giving the word different meanings in different contexts or mediums. I never came to the conclusion that rape was okay. I came to the conclusion that it was okay to use the word 'rape' as part of a video-game vernacular. What makes your context trump everyone else's? Sure, you might not be offended by that usage of rape-- and that's fine, I think most people in this community don't mind it either. Same with orb's slurs-- they weren't a problem to him at the time, and they probably didn't bug his opponent too much either-- but as a representative of EG, they had to consider how his word choice would be seen from a more public perspective. I don't buy that sponsors didn't factor into EG's decision either, but I think it's ridiculous to say that EG shouldn't have made the decision to let Orb go to make some point about contextualized word usage and gaming culture and blah blah blah. They were worried about their public image if they chose to associate themselves Orb onboard, and that's fine. " What makes your context trump everyone else's?" This question is nonsensical for so many different reasons, but here are a few: - I never made an argument that my context trumps anyone else's - *I* don't have a context, contexts are circumstantial - I don't pick the circumstances in which context becomes relevant No, but you have a different take on certain situations than everyone else would. I should have phrased that as 'What makes your *perspective* trump everyone else's?'-- either way, just because using those words is alright with you in that context doesn't mean everyone would be alright with that. And EG has to consider how associating themselves with Orb would affect their public image, which means they have to consider how *everyone* would feel. I'm not sure whether its a question of perspective *trumping* other people's perspectives, but more a question of what kind of forum do you want to have - what kind of "society" would you want to live in. Should it be one in which people who find certain words offensive, and for sake of argument, also find them offensive *regardless* of context, dictate the level of free speech that every other member in the community can have? That's basically saying that all terms can only be used in the contexts as determined by the most sensitive members of the community, keeping in mind that each term may have its own group. I think that's the point where it goes beyond personal preferences to being anti free speech; and its a slippery slope. Rape can easily be seen as a word that has a lot of negative imagery surrounding it, and female gamers may find use of such a word offensive regardless of context, or perhaps more likely when used in the typical gamer lingo of "I'm going to destroy you!". Are we going to take out a measuring scale and say, well its ok for you to be offended, because you are not as numerous as black gamers? I would think not; what is immoral is immoral, it doesn't matter how many people you make to feel terrible (just like we don't say its okay to openly discriminate against transgendered gamers simply based on their number). Therefore every commentator who says "rape" should be barred from commentating, every gamer who says it should be shunned, people who write that word in comments should be banned from their respective forum. Because we know, there is going to be a member of the community who finds that term offensive. There are so many words with negative imagery surrounding them. The n-word only varies in the degree of its negativity. If one is prepared to make the argument that offending a few people is irrelevant, offending many people makes it immoral, then ok. But personally I find this argument hypocritical and quite unethical. If you truly care about people's feelings, and don't want to offend anyone, you are going to have to go to an extreme degree to prevent that from happening. No one should be penalized for the idea that their words *may* be offensive to some, because they might find that context offensive. Because logically that argument would have to be extended to a ridiculous degree. It is only when words are deliberately used to be offensive, that people can be called out on it. And according to that idea of understanding the importance of context - they should only be deemed offensive to the degree that they were meant to be offensive - i.e. using the n-word in a moment of anger being taken only as a moment of weakness, not as a deliberate racist remark with the following overblown consequences. Anyways I understand the EG needs to be careful of its public image argument. But I still think we should call out Alex Garfield and stand up for what's ultimately, to me, ethically right. Free speech is more important than potentially offending certain people. Or maybe my argument is terrible and I've been deluded by my readings of John Stuart Mill. Ah well I hope that provided something useful
Freedom of speech is not a license to go around using offensive or inflammatory hate speech. If you go around calling people faggots, retards or niggers, then you might not be breaking any laws, but you should be prepared to face the consequences.
Being polite and friendly online literally costs you nothing, and it makes everyone's experience a lot more pleasant. I would hope that TL would get behind good manner online, instead of trying to justify bad manner.
|
On April 09 2012 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think that's the point where it goes beyond personal preferences to being anti free speech
There is no right to free speech (speaking about the U.S.) except in relation to the government. You don't have a right not to get fired from your job for what you say.
|
People are seriously confusing the whole "right to free speech" too broadly. In the States, it means the *government* can't censor you in *most* situations. It does NOT mean "I have the right to say whatever the hell I want without any consequences". You have the right to say it, and others have the right to call you out on it. That's exactly how the 1st Amendment works. Of course, on places such as internet forums, there is no particular right, it's all up to site owners.
|
Nobody even said a word about Kerrigan's yearbook photo, which reveals that her middle name is Alexandria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
