|
Keep this civil, guys |
On May 05 2012 17:17 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 16:31 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 16:18 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. Yes, you have no morals if you think there is a difference between ladder rage and actual racism. It`s not like there is any context here that makes it a tad bit different. What has moral and social decency got to do with each other anyway? If I do not speak nice to you I`m automatically a person who makes terrible moral decisions? That makes no sense. I'm assuming you believe one can say and act however they like so long as they do so under the guise of ladder rage? I'm also assuming you believe you can then later show no remorse, actually state it can, will and should happen again, then retroactively attibute the entire thing as championing the cause of anti-censorship and free speech, free speech being an entirely different concept than most actually think it is. Then comment that if you don't like it, don't watch the stream, conveniently forgetting those on the ladder that are the targets of such abuse. The context is very much understood. I do believe a person is truly revealed for what they are in an environment where they can act and speak without percieved consequences, the worst thing that can happen to the people in this thread is a ban, no real lasting consequence at all that would affect their real lives, quite different to what would happen if they were to act this way in a real situation amongst their peers, where what they say have lasting consequences. I was just pointing out how much of a ridiculous and overblown statement it was of you to say that half of this community has no morals based on them agreeing/defending Destiny. Of course you chose not to respond to that, maybe because it was a stupid remark and made no sense.
You can point out what you like, also you weren't merely pointing that out at all, you were attempting to point out the difference between ladder rage and racism along with the need to bear in mind context, you may want to read what you type. I think my post stated exactly what I wanted it to state. It really isn't my job to educate you on respect, morality or anything of the like, to be frank. Attempting to use a play on semantics to obfuscate the actual point of my post is silly and trite, but of course you know that.
The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it.
The internet is an interesting creation, in that in the last 15-20 years we are able to really delve into the beliefs and psyche of people like never before, due to the anonymity it provides, it really reveals the darker side to humanity.
|
On May 05 2012 17:22 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it.
Whenever you find yourself feeling too cynical about people, look at all the online services people have made to help other people do good. Look at the people who volunteer their time to translating news articles so that people aroung the world can read them. Remember, even places like 4chan have done good as well as bad - they've tracked down paedophiles, wannabe school shooters and terrorists, and animal abusers and reported them to the police. People can be shit but they can also be wonderful, and the internet provides them with the anonymity to do both to their hearts content.
|
On May 05 2012 17:28 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:22 hzflank wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it. I was thinking the same thing. For anyone that has been playing games online for 10+ years and been part of the different communities and stuff that has been going on in that period this incident is like the tiniest drop in the ocean.
All I can say is no one can make you do something. You always have the choice. Don't use other peoples negativity as an excuse for being an asshole yourself. That's for people with weak character.
|
On May 05 2012 14:35 hzflank wrote:
I would love to be able to see the age of posters in this thread. I don't see how anyone who has had a few jobs can can defend racism. If you are caught being racist in your workplace then you will lose your job. You cannot argue against that. If I was overheard saying the word Gook at work then I would find myself immediately unemployed.
How often are you put in this situation in a work place? You understand, NA/EU players despise 1 base all-in play? Player in the GSL does it? Spectators complain. Hell, look at the BM thread, you have people threatening to kill people, wishing death on their family, etc.
As I gave in an earlier example, they treat it as if someone spit in their face. Someone spits in your face at work? Of course it's going to erupt into a problem. It's not like Destiny randomly joined a game and said,"Fuck you gook."
His opponent 1 based him, offensive GGed him, and taunted him.
|
In professional football(soccer) you get banned from matches for x games and lose all your salary for that time and possibly get an additional fine and go to the court, theres pretty much zero tolerance for racism in real sports today. Although the money isn't a big punishment for players that make millions anyway but missing out on important matches is actually a big deal for most. Look up John Terry and Luis Suarez as more recent cases.
However I think that a punishment or leaving the team was not necessary in this case, however he would have had to both apogolize and make sure it doesn't happen again but issue here is that apparently this was impossible for him and to make it worse he rather just poured more oil in the fire so due to that this was the only possible outcome.
As long as Destiny doesn't carry the tag of a professional sponsored team he can do whatever he pleases without any real reason for community outrage and by being a even bigger moron he probably gets even more classy and mature viewers and makes good money so good for him. But being in a professional team comes with some basic responsibilities that the remaining pros seem to be able to follow fairly well.
Well a ridiculous and pathetic case and I wish I never witnessed it and I hate myself a little for adding to the post count of this thread. Probably a good reference in the future for the I hate e-sports part of the community if nothing else though.
|
This thread is literally half of reddit being angry at destiny and half of it being supportive of him. Go back to /r/starcraft trolls.
|
just posting to say that this drama is boring. destiny is not a love/hate character, he's a love/hate/dont give a damn about like everyone else.
i grew out of the 'teenage rebel' phase over a decade ago.
|
(Note: I originally wanted to make this a separate topic, due to its length, but my account is still fresh so I can't.)
This is my first post here over at Team Liquid; in fact, this is the main reasons I made my account. I've been an avid reader of not just Team Liquid, but practically any gaming-related content, even Forbes and The Economist articles on gaming. And yet, in the five years that I have been following professional gaming, and even just gaming in general, I have never ever seen anything as scary as what's happening now.
We all have the right to express our own opinions, albeit there are limits, succinctly summarized by the phrase "One's rights ends when another's rights begins." In the exercise of our rights we must not trample over the rights of others. We have every right to be offended by Orb's and Destiny's usage of racial slurs; we have every right to say these opinions and feelings of offense in public; however, that does not give us any right to ruin careers on the basis that, in our point of view, what he said was "unethical."
The truth of the matter is, throughout all existing sports, throughout all existing forms of entertainment, throughout all of everything, there will always be individuals that use what we call "bad words." Note that I use quotation marks; that's because our definition of bad may not be someone else's definition of bad, the very same way that someone may not have the same religious beliefs or interpretations as I do.
Destiny, Orb, Naniwa and IdrA are just tiny drops in a vast community. There are plenty of others in the community that speak in much "wilder" ways than these individuals do; I haven't heard anyone forming a lynch mob to have Blizzard ban these individuals. Why the double standard?
Before this community burns itself to the ground by conducting witch hunts and executing individuals who have contributed more to it than those that are hunting them, I want to remind you guys of a few historical examples of why, even when someone is acting really, really bad, it absolutely does not hinder the "mainstreamness" of that sport:
• John McEnroe. Legendary tennis player. He swears at the umpire, his opponent, and even the audience. A few choice quotes: "You can't be serious!" "You are the pits of the world! Vultures! Trash!"
• Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Undefeated boxer, former pound-for-pound best fighter in the world. Known for trashing ethnic groups (including Filipinos like me). A few choice quotes: "When I kick that motherfucking midget's (referring to Pacquiao), I'm gonna get him to make me some sushi rolls and some rice."
• Michael Llodra. French tennis player. Fined US$2,500 for calling a Chinese female fan of his opponent a "fucking Chinese."
• Luis Suarez. Liverpool soccer player. Suspended for eight matches and fined $62,000 for making racist comments against a player from Manchester United.
All these four individuals belong to sports that are, arguably, much bigger/mainstream (at least in viewership) than e-sports. Did any of these individuals kill their sport by uttering racial slurs? NO. Did those sports communities (which, I would argue, are much more mature than us) send e-mails or letters to sponsors telling them to kick the player, to ban, or that they won't support the player/team/sponsor anymore? Hell NO.
What they did was, in a manner as civilized and mature as possible, Tweeted, posted Facebook statuses about it, etc.; in the case of McEnroe, when the internet was still in its infancy (not many people used it back then), people read about it in the newspapers, saw it on television, and talked/discussed it with each other. But they did not, at any point in time, try to strip McEnroe of his career. Even Mayweather, who I will say I hate (along with a couple million boxing fans/Pacquiao fans), I never thought of sending his sponsors or him or the promoters to reject him. That's not how it works in truly professionalized sports.
The way it works, is through appropriate sanctions, and not community action that scares away sponsors. The truth is, it's much more scarier to a sponsor to receive e-mails and letters about fans no longer supporting their brand, their team or their player, than it is motivating for them to receive e-mails and letters about fans happy and supporting their brand, their team or their player. Some call this "witch hunt" or "lynching" as the "necessary growing pains" towards the end-goal of making e-sports truly professional and mainstream.
But are they really towards that goal, or against it?
Again, it is scary on the part of the sponsors when they receive such letters and e-mails (listen to State of the Game Episode 65 where the cast succinctly discuss the orb issue). If sponsors are scared, do any of you guys seriously think that they will be motivated to continue supporting e-sports? Do you think potential sponsors will be attracted by a community that wields digital pitch forks and conducts digital lynching? No, they won't be attracted.
What will attract them is a community that listens, understands, and does not have any delusions that they are morally ascendant and feel like they have the power to judge any individual. That much is certain.
What the best way the community can do, to at least lessen BM, is to push for an organization like International Tennis Federation (ITF), International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), etc., or even similar to the Korean KeSPA, that handles such issues. Take it out of the hands of the mob (that's the community at large) and put it in the hands of a well-structured organization run by professionals.
We are at a crossroads where the community has to choose between two things: do we act like a lynching mob, not governed by any rules of conduct, logical deliberation, and simply acting on whims; a path that will surely lead us to lynching more professionals (think Naniwa and IdrA), and risk that the e-sports scene will be devoid of personalities, variety and even talent? Or do we push for the formation of a regulating body that handles these matters the way professional, mainstream sports do: by fining, sanctioning and booting players not on a whim, but with deliberation.
We are seemingly currently ruled by an angry mob, a kangaroo court, or witch hunters; do we stick with them, or do we reject them and seek to establish a real court, with a judge and jury, all professionals, and all doing their job with deliberation and determined logic?
In a nutshell:
• We do not want to scare away sponsors; lynch mobs/witch hunts, unfortunately, are a way of scaring them.
• We do not want to be devoid of personalities. Sports isn't just about skill, or talent; it's also about seeing personalities (be they good or bad). We can react to these personalities, but we do not want a bland scene that does not grow.
• We do not want to scare away potential professional gamers, and we do not want to promote a "plastic" society, where people are forced to act differently from who they truly are. We want as many pros as possible, and we want them to be honest about who they are.
I am not insulting anyone with this post. I understand both parties; many of us are running scared because of the potential implications of the witch hunts the community has engaged in recently. On the other hand. I also understand the indignation and desire of those involved in these witch hunts to reduce BM (especially racial slurs), but there is both a proper way and an improper way of handling such issues.
And remember what Morgan Freeman once said: "The only way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it." The more we talk about racism, the more we keep it alive (regardless of intent).
|
On May 05 2012 17:34 Darkedge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:17 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 16:31 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 16:18 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. Yes, you have no morals if you think there is a difference between ladder rage and actual racism. It`s not like there is any context here that makes it a tad bit different. What has moral and social decency got to do with each other anyway? If I do not speak nice to you I`m automatically a person who makes terrible moral decisions? That makes no sense. I'm assuming you believe one can say and act however they like so long as they do so under the guise of ladder rage? I'm also assuming you believe you can then later show no remorse, actually state it can, will and should happen again, then retroactively attibute the entire thing as championing the cause of anti-censorship and free speech, free speech being an entirely different concept than most actually think it is. Then comment that if you don't like it, don't watch the stream, conveniently forgetting those on the ladder that are the targets of such abuse. The context is very much understood. I do believe a person is truly revealed for what they are in an environment where they can act and speak without percieved consequences, the worst thing that can happen to the people in this thread is a ban, no real lasting consequence at all that would affect their real lives, quite different to what would happen if they were to act this way in a real situation amongst their peers, where what they say have lasting consequences. I was just pointing out how much of a ridiculous and overblown statement it was of you to say that half of this community has no morals based on them agreeing/defending Destiny. Of course you chose not to respond to that, maybe because it was a stupid remark and made no sense. You can point out what you like, also you weren't merely pointing that out at all, you were attempting to point out the difference between ladder rage and racism along with the need to bear in mind context, you may want to read what you type. I think my post stated exactly what I wanted it to state. It really isn't my job to educate you on respect, morality or anything of the like, to be frank. Attempting to use a play on semantics to obfuscate the actual point of my post is silly and trite, but of course you know that. Show nested quote + The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it. The internet is an interesting creation, in that in the last 15-20 years we are able to really delve into the beliefs and psyche of people like never before, due to the anonymity it provides, it really reveals the darker side to humanity.
I was actually just annoyed at you judging people so harshly. I know there are no good excuses for racial slurs and homophobic language and language that demeans mentally challenged people or people of lower height or people with glasses and so on. But deciding that people are lacking any morale because they use it on the internet is too much.
|
On May 05 2012 17:56 QNdie wrote:
This thread is literally half of reddit being angry at destiny and half of it being supportive of him. Go back to /r/starcraft trolls.
TL started this thing so..
|
On May 05 2012 17:48 Orracle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 14:35 hzflank wrote:
I would love to be able to see the age of posters in this thread. I don't see how anyone who has had a few jobs can can defend racism. If you are caught being racist in your workplace then you will lose your job. You cannot argue against that. If I was overheard saying the word Gook at work then I would find myself immediately unemployed. How often are you put in this situation in a work place? You understand, NA/EU players despise 1 base all-in play? Player in the GSL does it? Spectators complain. Hell, look at the BM thread, you have people threatening to kill people, wishing death on their family, etc. As I gave in an earlier example, they treat it as if someone spit in their face. Someone spits in your face at work? Of course it's going to erupt into a problem. It's not like Destiny randomly joined a game and said,"Fuck you gook." His opponent 1 based him, offensive GGed him, and taunted him.
One base plays are as bad as spitting in someone's face?
It is quite a bit off-topic to go into why westerners dislike one base play, but to be honest a large part of that goes back to the Destiny's of brood war anyway. If the top non-korean players did not start using 'cheese' to excuse their losses then people would use some sense and perhaps even understand why one base plays are so good. You mentioned the recent GSL and that is a great example. IM_MVP did not cheese Naniwa, rather Naniwa tried to cheese and MVP called his bluff. Keeping opponents honest is essential in starcraft, and without it none of us would enjoy the game.
We cannot do anything about random players using bad manners of ladder (and it really does hurt the elephant, you dont have to be a genius to work out why!). But teams absolutely should stop their professional players from using bad manners, let alone racism.
|
I don't really see why so many people view it as so hard not to use racial slurs.
Sponsored by a team? Don't use those words. Easy.
|
As a follow up (and possibly as a disclaimer), I'd like to clarify a few things:
I am NOT a Destiny fan.
I am a Quantic fan.
I am NOT an Orb fan.
I have no biases whatsoever to the issue. My point is, while racial slurs and BM in general is something we should try to stop, we should also take in mind that raising pitchforks and scaring sponsors away with such displays of knee-jerk reactions ISN'T the right way to do it.
If we really want to make e-sports as mainstream as possible, we shouldn't act the way the community is doing recently; we should, instead, be pushing for a true global/international e-sports (or at least Pro SC2) governing body. One that sanctions, fines and (in very, very extreme cases) boots players. We shouldn't be resorting to vigilante justice.
|
On May 05 2012 18:10 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:34 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 17:17 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 16:31 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 16:18 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. Yes, you have no morals if you think there is a difference between ladder rage and actual racism. It`s not like there is any context here that makes it a tad bit different. What has moral and social decency got to do with each other anyway? If I do not speak nice to you I`m automatically a person who makes terrible moral decisions? That makes no sense. I'm assuming you believe one can say and act however they like so long as they do so under the guise of ladder rage? I'm also assuming you believe you can then later show no remorse, actually state it can, will and should happen again, then retroactively attibute the entire thing as championing the cause of anti-censorship and free speech, free speech being an entirely different concept than most actually think it is. Then comment that if you don't like it, don't watch the stream, conveniently forgetting those on the ladder that are the targets of such abuse. The context is very much understood. I do believe a person is truly revealed for what they are in an environment where they can act and speak without percieved consequences, the worst thing that can happen to the people in this thread is a ban, no real lasting consequence at all that would affect their real lives, quite different to what would happen if they were to act this way in a real situation amongst their peers, where what they say have lasting consequences. I was just pointing out how much of a ridiculous and overblown statement it was of you to say that half of this community has no morals based on them agreeing/defending Destiny. Of course you chose not to respond to that, maybe because it was a stupid remark and made no sense. You can point out what you like, also you weren't merely pointing that out at all, you were attempting to point out the difference between ladder rage and racism along with the need to bear in mind context, you may want to read what you type. I think my post stated exactly what I wanted it to state. It really isn't my job to educate you on respect, morality or anything of the like, to be frank. Attempting to use a play on semantics to obfuscate the actual point of my post is silly and trite, but of course you know that. The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it. The internet is an interesting creation, in that in the last 15-20 years we are able to really delve into the beliefs and psyche of people like never before, due to the anonymity it provides, it really reveals the darker side to humanity. I was actually just annoyed at you judging people so harshly. I know there are no good excuses for racial slurs and homophobic and language that demeans mentally challenged people or people of lower height or people with glasses and so on. But deciding that people are lacking any morale because they use it on the internet is too much.
It's a good thing then that you are a reasonable and respectful person, so in the spirit of that would you not agree playing a game of 'gotchya' in regards to the semantics of "social decency" and "morality" instead of addressing the actual point of the post brings nothing to the discussion?
The definition of morality is such:
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So by this definition, saying they had no morals isn't accurate as much as to say they have a warped sense of morality that would not be accepted in reasonable society, is this agreeable?
Did this really add anything to the debate? I'm really not sure that it did. If I were to argue that starting a sentence with the word "but" isn't grammatically correct it would seem petty and wouldn't be addressing the point and spirit of your post right?
|
On May 05 2012 17:49 Vaelone wrote:
In professional football(soccer) you get banned from matches for x games and lose all your salary for that time and possibly get an additional fine and go to the court, theres pretty much zero tolerance for racism in real sports today. Although the money isn't a big punishment for players that make millions anyway but missing out on important matches is actually a big deal for most. Look up John Terry and Luis Suarez as more recent cases.
However I think that a punishment or leaving the team was not necessary in this case, however he would have had to both apogolize and make sure it doesn't happen again but issue here is that apparently this was impossible for him and to make it worse he rather just poured more oil in the fire so due to that this was the only possible outcome.
As long as Destiny doesn't carry the tag of a professional sponsored team he can do whatever he pleases without any real reason for community outrage and by being a even bigger moron he probably gets even more classy and mature viewers and makes good money so good for him. But being in a professional team comes with some basic responsibilities that the remaining pros seem to be able to follow fairly well.
Well a ridiculous and pathetic case and I wish I never witnessed it and I hate myself a little for adding to the post count of this thread. Probably a good reference in the future for the I hate e-sports part of the community if nothing else though.
How do you know wether or not football players make racist jokes among themselves during practice?
|
Russian Federation60 Posts
I'm a bit disappointed by this drama, but at the same time it was inevitable. Someone sad a bad word to you? Better get him fired. The whole emailing sponsors thing is absolutely disgusting.
Anyways.
Best of luck Steven.
|
On May 05 2012 18:23 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:49 Vaelone wrote:
In professional football(soccer) you get banned from matches for x games and lose all your salary for that time and possibly get an additional fine and go to the court, theres pretty much zero tolerance for racism in real sports today. Although the money isn't a big punishment for players that make millions anyway but missing out on important matches is actually a big deal for most. Look up John Terry and Luis Suarez as more recent cases.
However I think that a punishment or leaving the team was not necessary in this case, however he would have had to both apogolize and make sure it doesn't happen again but issue here is that apparently this was impossible for him and to make it worse he rather just poured more oil in the fire so due to that this was the only possible outcome.
As long as Destiny doesn't carry the tag of a professional sponsored team he can do whatever he pleases without any real reason for community outrage and by being a even bigger moron he probably gets even more classy and mature viewers and makes good money so good for him. But being in a professional team comes with some basic responsibilities that the remaining pros seem to be able to follow fairly well.
Well a ridiculous and pathetic case and I wish I never witnessed it and I hate myself a little for adding to the post count of this thread. Probably a good reference in the future for the I hate e-sports part of the community if nothing else though. How do you know wether or not football players make racist jokes among themselves during practice?
The British secret service monitors them of course.
Next good question please.
Edit: I'm not that naive and my point is that what you do behind closed doors where no one finds out about it is your business whether it's morally right or not, what you do while carrying your teams colours, sponsors logo and a hundred thousand eyes and ears on you is whole another story.
|
@RageBot, we can never know for sure. But if such racial slurs are used, and if the usage was found out, we don't see the football community raising pitchforks, now do we?
What happens, instead, is the FIFA suspends, fines, and (in appropriate cases) bans players using such slurs. But the banning part is rare; its more of suspension and fining. And that's what we should aim for, not this whole lynching and witch hunting debacle.
|
On May 05 2012 18:23 Darkedge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 18:10 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 17:34 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 17:17 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 16:31 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 16:18 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. Yes, you have no morals if you think there is a difference between ladder rage and actual racism. It`s not like there is any context here that makes it a tad bit different. What has moral and social decency got to do with each other anyway? If I do not speak nice to you I`m automatically a person who makes terrible moral decisions? That makes no sense. I'm assuming you believe one can say and act however they like so long as they do so under the guise of ladder rage? I'm also assuming you believe you can then later show no remorse, actually state it can, will and should happen again, then retroactively attibute the entire thing as championing the cause of anti-censorship and free speech, free speech being an entirely different concept than most actually think it is. Then comment that if you don't like it, don't watch the stream, conveniently forgetting those on the ladder that are the targets of such abuse. The context is very much understood. I do believe a person is truly revealed for what they are in an environment where they can act and speak without percieved consequences, the worst thing that can happen to the people in this thread is a ban, no real lasting consequence at all that would affect their real lives, quite different to what would happen if they were to act this way in a real situation amongst their peers, where what they say have lasting consequences. I was just pointing out how much of a ridiculous and overblown statement it was of you to say that half of this community has no morals based on them agreeing/defending Destiny. Of course you chose not to respond to that, maybe because it was a stupid remark and made no sense. You can point out what you like, also you weren't merely pointing that out at all, you were attempting to point out the difference between ladder rage and racism along with the need to bear in mind context, you may want to read what you type. I think my post stated exactly what I wanted it to state. It really isn't my job to educate you on respect, morality or anything of the like, to be frank. Attempting to use a play on semantics to obfuscate the actual point of my post is silly and trite, but of course you know that. The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it. The internet is an interesting creation, in that in the last 15-20 years we are able to really delve into the beliefs and psyche of people like never before, due to the anonymity it provides, it really reveals the darker side to humanity. I was actually just annoyed at you judging people so harshly. I know there are no good excuses for racial slurs and homophobic and language that demeans mentally challenged people or people of lower height or people with glasses and so on. But deciding that people are lacking any morale because they use it on the internet is too much. It's a good thing then that you are a reasonable and respectful person, so in the spirit of that would you not agree playing a game of 'gotchya' in regards to the semantics of "social decency" and "morality" instead of addressing the actual point of the post brings nothing to the discussion? The definition of morality is such: Show nested quote +
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So by this definition, saying they had no morals isn't accurate as much as to say they have a warped sense of morality that would not be accepted in reasonable society, is this agreeable? Did this really add anything to the debate? I'm really not sure that it did. If I were to argue that starting a sentence with the word "but" isn't grammatically correct it would seem petty and wouldn't be addressing the point and spirit of your post right?
But I guess you could argue that whether someone thinks racial slurs on the internet is not a big deal is not the moral value most people value the most. But I could be wrong I guess. Your point seemed to be just to show how indignant you are at people in this community, or that people in general are terrible. Interesting point.
|
On May 05 2012 18:36 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 18:23 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 18:10 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 17:34 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 17:17 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 16:31 Darkedge wrote:On May 05 2012 16:18 Grend wrote:On May 05 2012 15:35 Darkedge wrote:
The fact that this is such a polorising and splitting issue is very disturbing, either half of society has no morals whatsoever and simply adheres to social decency due to potential ostracisation from their peers and can conveniently ignore this barrier when posting with the anonymity of an online environment or the SC community simply attracts terrible people.
For the good of my sanity, dear god I hope it's the latter but I fear the former is true. Yes, you have no morals if you think there is a difference between ladder rage and actual racism. It`s not like there is any context here that makes it a tad bit different. What has moral and social decency got to do with each other anyway? If I do not speak nice to you I`m automatically a person who makes terrible moral decisions? That makes no sense. I'm assuming you believe one can say and act however they like so long as they do so under the guise of ladder rage? I'm also assuming you believe you can then later show no remorse, actually state it can, will and should happen again, then retroactively attibute the entire thing as championing the cause of anti-censorship and free speech, free speech being an entirely different concept than most actually think it is. Then comment that if you don't like it, don't watch the stream, conveniently forgetting those on the ladder that are the targets of such abuse. The context is very much understood. I do believe a person is truly revealed for what they are in an environment where they can act and speak without percieved consequences, the worst thing that can happen to the people in this thread is a ban, no real lasting consequence at all that would affect their real lives, quite different to what would happen if they were to act this way in a real situation amongst their peers, where what they say have lasting consequences. I was just pointing out how much of a ridiculous and overblown statement it was of you to say that half of this community has no morals based on them agreeing/defending Destiny. Of course you chose not to respond to that, maybe because it was a stupid remark and made no sense. You can point out what you like, also you weren't merely pointing that out at all, you were attempting to point out the difference between ladder rage and racism along with the need to bear in mind context, you may want to read what you type. I think my post stated exactly what I wanted it to state. It really isn't my job to educate you on respect, morality or anything of the like, to be frank. Attempting to use a play on semantics to obfuscate the actual point of my post is silly and trite, but of course you know that. The internet slowly destroys a person's faith in humanity. I have been playing online games for almost 15 years and I became a very cynical person because of it. The internet is an interesting creation, in that in the last 15-20 years we are able to really delve into the beliefs and psyche of people like never before, due to the anonymity it provides, it really reveals the darker side to humanity. I was actually just annoyed at you judging people so harshly. I know there are no good excuses for racial slurs and homophobic and language that demeans mentally challenged people or people of lower height or people with glasses and so on. But deciding that people are lacking any morale because they use it on the internet is too much. It's a good thing then that you are a reasonable and respectful person, so in the spirit of that would you not agree playing a game of 'gotchya' in regards to the semantics of "social decency" and "morality" instead of addressing the actual point of the post brings nothing to the discussion? The definition of morality is such:
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So by this definition, saying they had no morals isn't accurate as much as to say they have a warped sense of morality that would not be accepted in reasonable society, is this agreeable? Did this really add anything to the debate? I'm really not sure that it did. If I were to argue that starting a sentence with the word "but" isn't grammatically correct it would seem petty and wouldn't be addressing the point and spirit of your post right? But I guess you could argue that whether someone thinks racial slurs on the internet is not a big deal is not the moral value most people value the most. But I could be wrong I guess. Your point seemed to be just to show how indignant you are at people in this community, or that people in general are terrible. Interesting point.
I'm sorry but your post reeks of passive aggression, it really isn't needed, if you are going to debate, if that is indeed what you are attempting, please do so like a mature adult. You are making yourself look rather silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
