On August 14 2010 07:31 johnlee wrote: Here's an excerpt from a book No One Owns You by Andrew Knight, which pretty much sums up how I feel about this: + Show Spoiler +
"There is, in my opinion, nothing inherently wrong, vulgar, violent, or indecent about any language, including profanity. Words are just fucking words. Without doubt, they can be used (in conjunction with raised voices and aggressive body language) to intimidate and verbally abuse others. However, the mere use of these words to communicate is not, per se, violent. So what might a Libertarian say about a hypersensitive Puritan woman who is stuck in the same room with a man who honed his vocabulary in a federal penitentiary? Assume that the man has no intention of being violent but, in speaking naturally, discusses things the Puritan finds acutely objectionable and in a language that makes her want to squeal in disgust.
Let’s make no mistake: the Puritan experiences emotional trauma by the man’s words. In some metaphysical sense, the man’s nonviolent words are causing her pain, but only in conjunction with her hypersensitivity. Who is to blame and what should be done to alleviate the pain?
First, to assign blame here is to assume that someone is acting wrongly. I suggest that neither is wrong. The Puritan woman is merely reacting according to her pre-programming and emotional conditioning, and so is the man. In other words, they are both merely being themselves. Because the man is not being offensively violent to the woman, and also because he is not intending to harm her, the woman has no right to use violence against him in defense. Without an offense, there is no defense. Libertarianism respects the right of every person to be himself and to act, speak, and live freely to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others. The woman’s rights to life, liberty, and property have not been abrogated by the man’s choice of words.
To assert that neither is to blame and that no offensive attack has occurred is not to invalidate the woman’s feelings. Indeed, she does feel pain (of discomfort, at the very least) and she is not to blame for having these feelings. However, she is responsible for them. She must be held accountable for the ease with which she feels pain. A hypersensitive person cannot expect the world’s inhabitants to tiptoe around her in constant fear that she will be disturbed by the sounds of their footfall. People are people. Sometimes they’re loud. Sometimes they’re obnoxious. Sometimes they get in our way. But we share this tiny planet with several billion of them. To require every person to conform to our individual standards of comfort or morality would be chaotic as there are several billion such standards – one for each person. But to let people be themselves, to accept and understand even if we don’t agree – that is the recipe for peace and tranquility. Therefore, in my opinion, it is the woman’s responsibility to either leave the room or to learn to accept the man for who he is. The woman’s pain – a very real and understandable pain – is nonetheless her problem, not his. To hold otherwise would be to allow the world to be controlled by the most hypersensitive people. I say: let them be sensitive. Let them take offense. Let them be perpetually annoyed, bothered, angry, and judgemental. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to be the free, unhindered, joyful child that I am. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to live without artificial constraints, respecting the rights of others to live freely, and with little concern as to who may find me offensive, rude, or socially inept. To require every person to stay in his own space, to tread lightly, to speak softly, to conform to the hypersensitive person’s arbitrary standards and notions of decency is to blame every person for his very existence. Humans are creatures of nature. Neither the Victorian Era nor the Industrial Revolution changed the fact that we are all, fundamentally, children. Children are loud, cantankerous, silly, rude animals and they neither understand nor fully obey societal rules. On the other hand, to set a very high threshold for discomfort – to let the people around you be themselves without your resorting to anger, judgement, or criticism – is one of the kindest gifts you can bestow on the world. You can meaningfully contribute to humanity by accepting others as they are and decreasing your sensitivity to their differing opinions and ways of life.
The Puritan woman need not like the man, nor is she required to engage in conversation with him. But he has not offensively attacked her and, therefore, she has no defensive recourse. She has three options: a) continue to experience pain; b) leave the room; or c) learn to accept the man as he is, reduce her sensitivities, and increase her pain threshold. Of course, option a) seems unwise and option b) will doom the woman to isolation and loneliness. After all, we’ve all known lonely elderly folks stuck in retirement homes whom few will visit for fear of their judgements, hypersensitivity, and manipulation. Arguably, the woman’s best option is c): she has the power to accept the man as he is. She need not feel pain when surrounded by people who look differently, speak differently, and have different priorities than she does.
I believe that it is every person’s responsibility, both for his own happiness as well as that of the world’s populace, to shed his sensitivities and artificial dictates about how others “should” act, speak, dress, and live. The Puritan woman may feel a very real discomfort to which we can all empathize, but that is her problem to solve. To allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards."
Erm so your point is that if we allow a woman who was raped to have a problem with that then we " allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards"+ Show Spoiler +
Yep. If we let a woman who was raped push onto us HER issues with the way WE use the word, then we definitely a problem. I'm not okay-ing the fact that woman was raped. I'm saying that the fact that she is trying to use her rape experiences (which was clearly unfortunate) to disallow a gaming community or anything else for that matter from using the word, is wrong when it's clear that we are not using the word rape in the sense that she experienced.
It's as simple as that.
Sooo she disallows the gaming community and not the other way around? And im pretty sure no one EVER tried to USE their real rape experiences to gain anything. As far as i know aprox 70% of women dont even report the fact to the police due to intense shame caused by dumbasses who think like "She asked for it fo sure!" or "im sure she was a ho anyways" or "the bitch is lying she wanted it"
I've noticed a few of the posts lately are talking about rights. I hope people are aware the OP never intended to take away your right to say it, he was instead trying to say "please look at the repercussions it can cause on others. I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to say it. I'm asking you to be considerate." No one is saying you have to stop using it, it's merely a request. Which is fine when people are saying no, imo, but those who are bringing in "rights" and "free speech" are missing the entire point of the OP.
He's not saying "she has the right not to be offended." He's saying "please be considerate and don't offend her."
It's not up to you to tell me what words to use. Sure you can inform me of what the word 'rape' means to certain people but thats not gonna stop me from saying shit like faggot rape gay.
This conversation is stupid as fuck. I'm pretty sure the two following things are undeniable:
* Using "raped" as a synonym for "beat" or "owned" will make most women think you are an immature piece of shit.
* Lots of people will keep using it anyway because they don't give a damn. I sure will.
It's idiotic to discuss whether women "ought to" be offended, or draw some weird comparisons to other words. It's not up to you to decide who gets offended and who doesn't. It's up to you to decide whether to use words that offend people.
Is there something worth talking about here that I'm missing?
On August 14 2010 07:59 FabledIntegral wrote: I've noticed a few of the posts lately are talking about rights. I hope people are aware the OP never intended to take away your right to say it, he was instead trying to say "please look at the repercussions it can cause on others. I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to say it. I'm asking you to be considerate." No one is saying you have to stop using it, it's merely a request. Which is fine when people are saying no, imo, but those who are bringing in "rights" and "free speech" are missing the entire point of the OP.
He's not saying "she has the right not to be offended." He's saying "please be considerate and don't offend her."
He's editted his post somewhat but his tone was extremely arrogant and he suggested everyone who disagreed with him was immature, stupid or both. I think he'd have had a lot less of an argument on his hands had he taken a less sanctimonious approach.
On August 14 2010 05:32 Fontong wrote: The amount I'm offended by the word 'rape' is zero. If this was about the words 'gay' or 'faggot', or any other derogatory term referring to homosexuality, I would be much more open.
Rape victims are not being oppressed by society like homosexuals are, so let's deal with the bigger issues first, eh?
I'm not about to play 'who is worse off' but to say that homosexuals have a monopoly on negative treatment by society is ludicrous.
Good thing I didn't say that
You did say that you can';t be bothered with rape victims because homosexuals have a much worse situation. Which is ridiculous.
Kwark did a good job of elucidating my pointed, however, more explanation on my part would be prudent.
I'm not dismissing the use of the word 'rape' as an issue entirely. The difference between the use of words like rape and the use of words that are slang for homosexual is that no one who uses the word rape is a proponent of forced sexual intercourse. Is this not true? The word rape came into use in the gaming community because of its stipulation that the victim was helpless to defend against it. The phrase 'wow raped' obviously means that someone got completely dominated.
On the other hand, terms like 'fag' and 'gay' are derogatory terms based on some peoples belief that homosexuals don't have the same rights, or are in some way worse(going to hell, hated by god, ect) than a regular heterosexual human being. Using 'rape' on the internet isn't dehumanizing like 'fag' is - fag is equivalent to racial slander imo. If gay had the same stigma as nigger, and so was unacceptable in all but the closest and tight knit of circles, I think people would be much more likely to drop the usage online. As it is, people think it is ok to call people a fag if they think they are an idiot. Why should all kinds of racial slander be disallowed on our forums if gay and fag as derogatory terms are allowed? How are those usages any different from racial slander? There isn't a real difference in my opinion.
By supporting the usage of fag casually, we support the use of fag as an insult to homosexuals. It makes the term non-polarizing, since people who use or see the word casually will be less offended when it is aimed towards actual homosexuals. Rape has not lost its actual meaning, and I doubt it will even continue to do so. Since rape is universal, and applies to all humans(though most predominantly women), it is much harder for it to lose its meaning. We aren't dehumanizing people by using rape casually, though it might be offensive. No one would have their lessened reaction when hearing that their friend, significant other, or family member was raped just because they heard rape used casually.
Sorry for not elaborating on my opinion in my original post.
On August 14 2010 07:56 Klamity wrote: I try to avoid saying faggot, but am completely guilty of using the word rape. Rape, I guess unfortunately, has multiple meanings now. I guess you could argue that for faggot as well, but if you aren't going to run around screaming chink and nigger, then you probably shouldn't say faggot either. Same goes for any other slur like that.
well if you're going to say chink and nigger you might as well go around running saying EVERY other offensive word known to man, right, because language is a dichotomy with no transitory stages or intermediates...
btw the word faggot has gone through an amazing amount of definitions through its days, probably because it's awesomely fun to say. chink and nigger are just racist, man. =p
when someone calls someone a faggot, they likely aren't implying that they have the moral worth of a homosexual. they're probably just calling them, in their mind, an annoying piece of shit tool. and just btw, last night when I was LANing playing League of Legends with my friends I recall saying stuff like "wow is this fucking nigger serious," and blackness was the last thing on my mind. it's just an expression of ephemeral but intense frustration/anger. well not that intense, LoL doesn't make me rage at all compared to sc~
I know I said I would not post again but please do not lie about me.
I did not edit my original post at all except to add the two quotes and the bolded portions. I did not change any of the original language.
And if you read my post carefully you will see that I said "and it's NOT just immature and stupid people" that use the word.
What I DID say (in a later post which I also did not edit), was that I am 100% right. I regret my wording but I still do believe 100% that using those words the way that we use them IS immature and IS hurtful and DOES reflect poorly on our community.
And if you can avoid lying about me I will stick by my claim and refrain from posting in this thread again.
On August 14 2010 07:31 johnlee wrote: Here's an excerpt from a book No One Owns You by Andrew Knight, which pretty much sums up how I feel about this: + Show Spoiler +
"There is, in my opinion, nothing inherently wrong, vulgar, violent, or indecent about any language, including profanity. Words are just fucking words. Without doubt, they can be used (in conjunction with raised voices and aggressive body language) to intimidate and verbally abuse others. However, the mere use of these words to communicate is not, per se, violent. So what might a Libertarian say about a hypersensitive Puritan woman who is stuck in the same room with a man who honed his vocabulary in a federal penitentiary? Assume that the man has no intention of being violent but, in speaking naturally, discusses things the Puritan finds acutely objectionable and in a language that makes her want to squeal in disgust.
Let’s make no mistake: the Puritan experiences emotional trauma by the man’s words. In some metaphysical sense, the man’s nonviolent words are causing her pain, but only in conjunction with her hypersensitivity. Who is to blame and what should be done to alleviate the pain?
First, to assign blame here is to assume that someone is acting wrongly. I suggest that neither is wrong. The Puritan woman is merely reacting according to her pre-programming and emotional conditioning, and so is the man. In other words, they are both merely being themselves. Because the man is not being offensively violent to the woman, and also because he is not intending to harm her, the woman has no right to use violence against him in defense. Without an offense, there is no defense. Libertarianism respects the right of every person to be himself and to act, speak, and live freely to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others. The woman’s rights to life, liberty, and property have not been abrogated by the man’s choice of words.
To assert that neither is to blame and that no offensive attack has occurred is not to invalidate the woman’s feelings. Indeed, she does feel pain (of discomfort, at the very least) and she is not to blame for having these feelings. However, she is responsible for them. She must be held accountable for the ease with which she feels pain. A hypersensitive person cannot expect the world’s inhabitants to tiptoe around her in constant fear that she will be disturbed by the sounds of their footfall. People are people. Sometimes they’re loud. Sometimes they’re obnoxious. Sometimes they get in our way. But we share this tiny planet with several billion of them. To require every person to conform to our individual standards of comfort or morality would be chaotic as there are several billion such standards – one for each person. But to let people be themselves, to accept and understand even if we don’t agree – that is the recipe for peace and tranquility. Therefore, in my opinion, it is the woman’s responsibility to either leave the room or to learn to accept the man for who he is. The woman’s pain – a very real and understandable pain – is nonetheless her problem, not his. To hold otherwise would be to allow the world to be controlled by the most hypersensitive people. I say: let them be sensitive. Let them take offense. Let them be perpetually annoyed, bothered, angry, and judgemental. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to be the free, unhindered, joyful child that I am. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to live without artificial constraints, respecting the rights of others to live freely, and with little concern as to who may find me offensive, rude, or socially inept. To require every person to stay in his own space, to tread lightly, to speak softly, to conform to the hypersensitive person’s arbitrary standards and notions of decency is to blame every person for his very existence. Humans are creatures of nature. Neither the Victorian Era nor the Industrial Revolution changed the fact that we are all, fundamentally, children. Children are loud, cantankerous, silly, rude animals and they neither understand nor fully obey societal rules. On the other hand, to set a very high threshold for discomfort – to let the people around you be themselves without your resorting to anger, judgement, or criticism – is one of the kindest gifts you can bestow on the world. You can meaningfully contribute to humanity by accepting others as they are and decreasing your sensitivity to their differing opinions and ways of life.
The Puritan woman need not like the man, nor is she required to engage in conversation with him. But he has not offensively attacked her and, therefore, she has no defensive recourse. She has three options: a) continue to experience pain; b) leave the room; or c) learn to accept the man as he is, reduce her sensitivities, and increase her pain threshold. Of course, option a) seems unwise and option b) will doom the woman to isolation and loneliness. After all, we’ve all known lonely elderly folks stuck in retirement homes whom few will visit for fear of their judgements, hypersensitivity, and manipulation. Arguably, the woman’s best option is c): she has the power to accept the man as he is. She need not feel pain when surrounded by people who look differently, speak differently, and have different priorities than she does.
I believe that it is every person’s responsibility, both for his own happiness as well as that of the world’s populace, to shed his sensitivities and artificial dictates about how others “should” act, speak, dress, and live. The Puritan woman may feel a very real discomfort to which we can all empathize, but that is her problem to solve. To allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards."
Erm so your point is that if we allow a woman who was raped to have a problem with that then we " allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards"+ Show Spoiler +
Yep. If we let a woman who was raped push onto us HER issues with the way WE use the word, then we definitely a problem. I'm not okay-ing the fact that woman was raped. I'm saying that the fact that she is trying to use her rape experiences (which was clearly unfortunate) to disallow a gaming community or anything else for that matter from using the word, is wrong when it's clear that we are not using the word rape in the sense that she experienced.
It's as simple as that.
Would it be incorrect to sum up your views as "I don't care one iota about you, deal with it"?
I think we should care about these people and not use offensive words. I don't get why such a tiny thing that could make so many people hurt less is being resisted so much.
I find a lot of Americans inherently don't like socialism. Thre reason is: "Why should I have to do "insert something here" to benefit someone I don't know or care about?" It sounds selfish when you look at one example in a vacuum. It is just one little word right? Well, there are other words that offend people too. Why should you stop saying one little word that offends people, but be allowed to say other words that offend people? We should stop saying those other words too and make so many more hurt even less. Where should it stop? When do we get to the point where it becomes burdensome?
Some people think socialism is good. Some people think socialism is bad. It is basically the root behind this discussion about using one little word. You can agree or disagree with how people feel about it, but that's basically the jist.
On August 14 2010 07:56 Klamity wrote: I try to avoid saying faggot, but am completely guilty of using the word rape. Rape, I guess unfortunately, has multiple meanings now. I guess you could argue that for faggot as well, but if you aren't going to run around screaming chink and nigger, then you probably shouldn't say faggot either. Same goes for any other slur like that.
well if you're going to say chink and nigger you might as well go around running saying EVERY other offensive word known to man, right, because language is a dichotomy with no transitory stages or intermediates...
btw the word faggot has gone through an amazing amount of definitions through its days, probably because it's awesomely fun to say. chink and nigger are just racist, man. =p
when someone calls someone a faggot, they likely aren't implying that they have the moral worth of a homosexual. they're probably just calling them, in their mind, an annoying piece of shit tool.
What if they call someone a faggot and then tell them that they are probably sucking a dick right now?
It's common, believe me. It is implying that a man giving fellatio to another man makes him a lesser person.
Bringing up the fact that rape and own are synonyms in the gamers dictionary kinda grossed me out. It's not something I'd thought about before. I'm in full support of not using the words rape, gay, faggot, and retard in negative and insulting ways.
On August 14 2010 07:59 FabledIntegral wrote: I've noticed a few of the posts lately are talking about rights. I hope people are aware the OP never intended to take away your right to say it, he was instead trying to say "please look at the repercussions it can cause on others. I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to say it. I'm asking you to be considerate." No one is saying you have to stop using it, it's merely a request. Which is fine when people are saying no, imo, but those who are bringing in "rights" and "free speech" are missing the entire point of the OP.
He's not saying "she has the right not to be offended." He's saying "please be considerate and don't offend her."
He's editted his post somewhat but his tone was extremely arrogant and he suggested everyone who disagreed with him was immature, stupid or both. I think he'd have had a lot less of an argument on his hands had he taken a less sanctimonious approach.
I agree, he was arrogant. He sounded like environmental wackos, Peta members, Vegans, religious wackos, and other people who try to impose their views and standards on you. His pattern of posting conforms to how these groups make arguments.
On August 14 2010 07:31 johnlee wrote: Here's an excerpt from a book No One Owns You by Andrew Knight, which pretty much sums up how I feel about this: + Show Spoiler +
"There is, in my opinion, nothing inherently wrong, vulgar, violent, or indecent about any language, including profanity. Words are just fucking words. Without doubt, they can be used (in conjunction with raised voices and aggressive body language) to intimidate and verbally abuse others. However, the mere use of these words to communicate is not, per se, violent. So what might a Libertarian say about a hypersensitive Puritan woman who is stuck in the same room with a man who honed his vocabulary in a federal penitentiary? Assume that the man has no intention of being violent but, in speaking naturally, discusses things the Puritan finds acutely objectionable and in a language that makes her want to squeal in disgust.
Let’s make no mistake: the Puritan experiences emotional trauma by the man’s words. In some metaphysical sense, the man’s nonviolent words are causing her pain, but only in conjunction with her hypersensitivity. Who is to blame and what should be done to alleviate the pain?
First, to assign blame here is to assume that someone is acting wrongly. I suggest that neither is wrong. The Puritan woman is merely reacting according to her pre-programming and emotional conditioning, and so is the man. In other words, they are both merely being themselves. Because the man is not being offensively violent to the woman, and also because he is not intending to harm her, the woman has no right to use violence against him in defense. Without an offense, there is no defense. Libertarianism respects the right of every person to be himself and to act, speak, and live freely to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others. The woman’s rights to life, liberty, and property have not been abrogated by the man’s choice of words.
To assert that neither is to blame and that no offensive attack has occurred is not to invalidate the woman’s feelings. Indeed, she does feel pain (of discomfort, at the very least) and she is not to blame for having these feelings. However, she is responsible for them. She must be held accountable for the ease with which she feels pain. A hypersensitive person cannot expect the world’s inhabitants to tiptoe around her in constant fear that she will be disturbed by the sounds of their footfall. People are people. Sometimes they’re loud. Sometimes they’re obnoxious. Sometimes they get in our way. But we share this tiny planet with several billion of them. To require every person to conform to our individual standards of comfort or morality would be chaotic as there are several billion such standards – one for each person. But to let people be themselves, to accept and understand even if we don’t agree – that is the recipe for peace and tranquility. Therefore, in my opinion, it is the woman’s responsibility to either leave the room or to learn to accept the man for who he is. The woman’s pain – a very real and understandable pain – is nonetheless her problem, not his. To hold otherwise would be to allow the world to be controlled by the most hypersensitive people. I say: let them be sensitive. Let them take offense. Let them be perpetually annoyed, bothered, angry, and judgemental. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to be the free, unhindered, joyful child that I am. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to live without artificial constraints, respecting the rights of others to live freely, and with little concern as to who may find me offensive, rude, or socially inept. To require every person to stay in his own space, to tread lightly, to speak softly, to conform to the hypersensitive person’s arbitrary standards and notions of decency is to blame every person for his very existence. Humans are creatures of nature. Neither the Victorian Era nor the Industrial Revolution changed the fact that we are all, fundamentally, children. Children are loud, cantankerous, silly, rude animals and they neither understand nor fully obey societal rules. On the other hand, to set a very high threshold for discomfort – to let the people around you be themselves without your resorting to anger, judgement, or criticism – is one of the kindest gifts you can bestow on the world. You can meaningfully contribute to humanity by accepting others as they are and decreasing your sensitivity to their differing opinions and ways of life.
The Puritan woman need not like the man, nor is she required to engage in conversation with him. But he has not offensively attacked her and, therefore, she has no defensive recourse. She has three options: a) continue to experience pain; b) leave the room; or c) learn to accept the man as he is, reduce her sensitivities, and increase her pain threshold. Of course, option a) seems unwise and option b) will doom the woman to isolation and loneliness. After all, we’ve all known lonely elderly folks stuck in retirement homes whom few will visit for fear of their judgements, hypersensitivity, and manipulation. Arguably, the woman’s best option is c): she has the power to accept the man as he is. She need not feel pain when surrounded by people who look differently, speak differently, and have different priorities than she does.
I believe that it is every person’s responsibility, both for his own happiness as well as that of the world’s populace, to shed his sensitivities and artificial dictates about how others “should” act, speak, dress, and live. The Puritan woman may feel a very real discomfort to which we can all empathize, but that is her problem to solve. To allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards."
Erm so your point is that if we allow a woman who was raped to have a problem with that then we " allow her to push her insecurities and discomforts on others is to allow the world to be ruled by fear, prejudice, hatred, and the psychological constraints imposed by cowards"+ Show Spoiler +
Yep. If we let a woman who was raped push onto us HER issues with the way WE use the word, then we definitely a problem. I'm not okay-ing the fact that woman was raped. I'm saying that the fact that she is trying to use her rape experiences (which was clearly unfortunate) to disallow a gaming community or anything else for that matter from using the word, is wrong when it's clear that we are not using the word rape in the sense that she experienced.
It's as simple as that.
Would it be incorrect to sum up your views as "I don't care one iota about you, deal with it"?
I think we should care about these people and not use offensive words. I don't get why such a tiny thing that could make so many people hurt less is being resisted so much.
I find a lot of Americans inherently don't like socialism. Thre reason is: "Why should I have to do "insert something here" to benefit someone I don't know or care about?" It sounds selfish when you look at one example in a vacuum. It is just one little word right? Well, there are other words that offend people too. Why should you stop saying one little word that offends people, but be allowed to say other words that offend people? We should stop saying those other words too and make so many more hurt even less. Where should it stop? When do we get to the point where it becomes burdensome?
Some people think socialism is good. Some people think socialism is bad. It is basically the root behind this discussion about using one little word. You can agree or disagree with how people feel about it, but that's basically the jist.
If we add Hitler to the discussion, we will have had everything: human rights, socialism, community prides, politically correct AND Nazism. Isn't that wonderful?
Actually most post i read here didn't try to force anyone to censor their language. No one tried to stop anyone from doing anything. Its a free internet everyone can say anyhing about anyone. I for one im just trying to ask you to THINK what some words we as gamers use can mean to other people. People who could be valued members of the community. Im pretty sure most of us when we see a nickname like Nikky or Jess we imagine that our opponent is some hot blonde chick. Im pretty sure 99% of the time its just some fat guy. No hot blonde chick would play in a community who uses words like rape... Just my opionon...
Anyways like the saying goes " Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win youre still retarded"
I think the usage of "rape" in a gaming sense is legitimate. The word does not strictly imply a sexual act (look it up in a dictionary). That doesn't mean that it's a good thing, as there are other words that can be used to describe defeat. Ultimately I don't think you can really say it's that offensive. It's (kind of) like saying that a kid's magazine cover is inappropriate because it talks about cleavage. And explains cells dividing.
However, "gay", "faggot", "nigger", are all despicably derogatory and there is no excuse to use these words as insults.
On August 14 2010 07:56 Klamity wrote: I try to avoid saying faggot, but am completely guilty of using the word rape. Rape, I guess unfortunately, has multiple meanings now. I guess you could argue that for faggot as well, but if you aren't going to run around screaming chink and nigger, then you probably shouldn't say faggot either. Same goes for any other slur like that.
well if you're going to say chink and nigger you might as well go around running saying EVERY other offensive word known to man, right, because language is a dichotomy with no transitory stages or intermediates...
btw the word faggot has gone through an amazing amount of definitions through its days, probably because it's awesomely fun to say. chink and nigger are just racist, man. =p
when someone calls someone a faggot, they likely aren't implying that they have the moral worth of a homosexual. they're probably just calling them, in their mind, an annoying piece of shit tool.
What if they call someone a faggot and then tell them that they are probably sucking a dick right now?
It's common, believe me. It is implying that a man giving fellatio to another man makes him a lesser person.
One could argue that oral copulation is commonly used to insult people. Suck My [blank], Eat Me, etc... It is implying that the person giving fellatio to another makes them a lesser person, regardless of sex or sexuality, due to being in the more submissive position of the relationship. The word used above, due to common views in society, instantly gives the mental image of the submissive role in the relationship.
When someone calls you gay, they aren't inferring you take the dominate role in the relationship. Just as if someone were to call you a woman. They aren't doing it to put down women, or to say that women are lesser persons than man, they are just noting the fact that society sees women are usually the submissive partner in a relationship.
EPT
everyone can say anyhing about anyone.
