|
Keep this civil, guys |
I really think this thread should be closed. All talk, no substance.
|
Really glad this happened. At least it means teams are getting more professional.
|
On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:20 partisan wrote:On May 05 2012 02:17 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:15 partisan wrote:
[quote]
Then you don't care about people using racial slurs, noted. Some of us think they're completely inappropriate because there is no reason to use them unless you are a trying to a denigrate a person based on race.
Depends, actually. If the President got up tomorrow and called Mexican immigrants "beaners," you can bet I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, if I were working and my boss told someone they were a "nigger," I'd have a problem with it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Destiny, and it's beginning to annoy me how people keep trying to label me as some sort of closet racist. You're making a distinction without a difference. How does the hatred behind the word change based on the position of the person using it? Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black. It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people.
Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality.
|
On May 05 2012 02:45 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:41 Caladbolg wrote:
Any company with PR smarts would drop someone accused of racism (especially when there's tangible proof) unless they thought that his/her value as their representative outweighs the potential damage to their image and goodwill. At the end of the day, it's about keeping the sponsor's name clean, so they can keep on sponsoring the scene. If the sponsor believes that any particular action will damage them beyond a certain level of exposure and advertisement, then they will act.
Which is why, one way or another, Destiny would have had it coming. This particular form of "emailing sponsors" is just the shortest route to the inevitable parting of ways. The image of Quantic's sponsors =/= the form of Destiny's popularity. This is the same thing that's happening in the UFC where Dana White is taking down fighters who post racist or insulting things on their twitter. He's not really saying the fights are racist: he's just trying to protect the image of the UFC and mixed-martial arts from being ruined by crassness. Dana himself is a walking cussball. But he knows there's a certain line that he cannot cross (racism, bigotry, etc), else he'll lose the support of the big businesses and corporations that help keep the UFC a thriving company.
It's all about the money. In other words, not being racist and not alienating large segments of the population is profitable. Money is colour-blind and that's a good thing. No one should think companies are pulling these sponsorships because they are moral. No, they are doing so because they are rational.
Which is essentially what I've been arguing for the last 10 pages. Although, I'd think it better to say money is anti-social rather than colourblind.
|
On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:20 partisan wrote:On May 05 2012 02:17 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:15 partisan wrote:
[quote]
Then you don't care about people using racial slurs, noted. Some of us think they're completely inappropriate because there is no reason to use them unless you are a trying to a denigrate a person based on race.
Depends, actually. If the President got up tomorrow and called Mexican immigrants "beaners," you can bet I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, if I were working and my boss told someone they were a "nigger," I'd have a problem with it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Destiny, and it's beginning to annoy me how people keep trying to label me as some sort of closet racist. You're making a distinction without a difference. How does the hatred behind the word change based on the position of the person using it? Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black. It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people.
Michael Richards wants his career back. Your "logic" isn't going to give it back. It's just a license to rage.
I'll add a quote from Batman Begins: "It's not who I am deep down, but what I do that defines me."
|
On May 05 2012 02:46 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:20 partisan wrote:On May 05 2012 02:17 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Depends, actually. If the President got up tomorrow and called Mexican immigrants "beaners," you can bet I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, if I were working and my boss told someone they were a "nigger," I'd have a problem with it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Destiny, and it's beginning to annoy me how people keep trying to label me as some sort of closet racist. You're making a distinction without a difference. How does the hatred behind the word change based on the position of the person using it? Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black. It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality.
Er, no, actually it isn't reality at all. If I look at a tree and think it's a tree, but it turns out it's really just an exceedingly clever artificial cardboard cutout, then my perception doesn't properly map to reality.
|
On May 05 2012 02:47 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:20 partisan wrote:On May 05 2012 02:17 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Depends, actually. If the President got up tomorrow and called Mexican immigrants "beaners," you can bet I'd have a problem with it. Similarly, if I were working and my boss told someone they were a "nigger," I'd have a problem with it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Destiny, and it's beginning to annoy me how people keep trying to label me as some sort of closet racist. You're making a distinction without a difference. How does the hatred behind the word change based on the position of the person using it? Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black. It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Michael Richards wants his career back. Your "logic" isn't going to give it back. It's just a license to rage.
I curious as to how it would appear to you that I'm raging, or that I enjoy it when people rage.
|
On May 05 2012 02:48 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:46 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:20 partisan wrote:
[quote]
You're making a distinction without a difference. How does the hatred behind the word change based on the position of the person using it? Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black. It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality. Er, no, actually it isn't reality at all. If I look at a tree and think it's a tree, but it turns out it's really just an exceedingly clever artificial cardboard cutout, then my perception doesn't properly map to reality.
The difference being that none of the arbitrary 'points' you have make sense.
Calling someone a nigger may not 'make' you a racists, but it sure as well will make people think you are. Not a bad start.
|
On May 05 2012 02:49 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:48 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:46 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Because people acting in public capacity represent by proxy a group of voters i.e. they sacrifice their autonomy to participate in public office. What they do off the job is of no concern of mine. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to call the use of words hatred per se. Hatred refers to a psychological attitude of active disregard for a particular thing. You cannot establish that from someone usually racially insensitively language in certain contexts (e.g. comedians, music artists). You could, however, establish that from someone who refers to, say, black people as niggers, in a completely regular, everyday, spiteful fashion on the sole merit of their being black.
It's also begging the question to ask the question you did, but I'm going to overlook it. There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation. People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld. The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality. Er, no, actually it isn't reality at all. If I look at a tree and think it's a tree, but it turns out it's really just an exceedingly clever artificial cardboard cutout, then my perception doesn't properly map to reality. The difference being that none of the arbitrary 'points' you have make sense. Calling someone a nigger may not 'make' you a racists, but it sure as well will make people think you are. Not a bad start.
Yes, and those people are unjustified in thinking so. There are plenty of people who think being a homosexual means you are a promiscuous, but they are nevertheless wrong. I think it best to focus more on your own personal integrity rather than trying to please everyone; you're inevitably going to lose.
|
I just wish I could make a post everyone would read and understand.... so I guess CAPS?? idk sorry....
EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD DOES NOT NEED TO BE TO YOUR LIKING!!!!
THE JERSEY SHORE IS THE MOST DISGUSTING, HORRIFIC PROGRAM ON TELEVISION. BUT YOU KNOW HOW I DEAL WITH THIS? I DON'T WATCH THE FUCKING THING. DOES IT STILL CONTINUE TO REPRESENT MY HOME TOWN IN A NEGATIVE WAY?? YES. BUT MOST SENSIBLE PEOPLE REALIZE THAT THIS ONLY REPRESENTS A SMALL MINORITY.
NOW WITH DESTINY YEAH HE CAN BE IMMATURE AND SAY RIDICULOUS THINGS AND SOMETIMES COME OFF AS HATEFUL. HE'S ALSO A VERY FUNNY AND ENTERTAINING GUY WHO I THINK BRINGS A LOT OF MUCH NEEDED CHARISMA TO THIS SCENE.
SO IF YOU CRUSADERS WHO HAVE TRIED SO HARD TO KILL DESTINY AND ORB BEFORE HIM IF YOU GUYS REALLY ARE FANS OF ESPORTS THINK ABOUT THIS; EVERY TIME YOU BLOW UP A SITUATION LIKE THIS IT MAKES IT 1000x WORSE FOR THE COMMUNITY THAN IF YOU JUST LET IT GO.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 05 2012 02:47 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:45 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:41 Caladbolg wrote:
Any company with PR smarts would drop someone accused of racism (especially when there's tangible proof) unless they thought that his/her value as their representative outweighs the potential damage to their image and goodwill. At the end of the day, it's about keeping the sponsor's name clean, so they can keep on sponsoring the scene. If the sponsor believes that any particular action will damage them beyond a certain level of exposure and advertisement, then they will act.
Which is why, one way or another, Destiny would have had it coming. This particular form of "emailing sponsors" is just the shortest route to the inevitable parting of ways. The image of Quantic's sponsors =/= the form of Destiny's popularity. This is the same thing that's happening in the UFC where Dana White is taking down fighters who post racist or insulting things on their twitter. He's not really saying the fights are racist: he's just trying to protect the image of the UFC and mixed-martial arts from being ruined by crassness. Dana himself is a walking cussball. But he knows there's a certain line that he cannot cross (racism, bigotry, etc), else he'll lose the support of the big businesses and corporations that help keep the UFC a thriving company.
It's all about the money. In other words, not being racist and not alienating large segments of the population is profitable. Money is colour-blind and that's a good thing. No one should think companies are pulling these sponsorships because they are moral. No, they are doing so because they are rational. Which is essentially what I've been arguing for the last 10 pages. Although, I'd think it better to say money is anti-social rather than colourblind.
Yes, but you and I differ in what you view society to be. It's not one that should be driven rational self-interested individuals; if individuals behaved like corporations, the world we live in would be a really different place
|
On May 05 2012 02:43 WECKL wrote:
This destiny guy continues to own all of you again and again.
Im gonna insult you the only way I know i wont get banned:
quote: You are stupid and you know nothing about sc2
Why couldn't you be funny, and post like intrigue did ?
Intrigue's post was the best I saw in a long time :D
|
|
|
On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:
You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty.
I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. I mean, with Destiny removed, can anyone really say a tangible victory against actual anti-Asian racism has been achieved? I think you'd be pretty hard to say so. Just because you make someone slightly less vocal doesn't mean you change the person behind the word (who, in this case, is probably quite harmless).
The point wasn't to change Destiny (which is an absurd thought). The point was to make it clear to all the SC2 "pros" out there and associated people making money off us what is not acceptable behavior. If it's okay for Destiny to act like this repeatedly, then why not everybody? I'm just disappointed it didn't happen sooner because I've been aware of other instances. Maybe he didn't have sponsors or a team at the time, though.
And how do you judge intent, exactly? All we can judge by in this world is how a person acts. He tells you he's not really racist and you believe him. I'm skeptical. I believe in context too. For you, it may not make a difference but for me, contextual anger that utilizes racial dialogue is worse than contextual anger without. In the real world, people would call this "common sense". Blame society.
What I see here is a group of people who decided to appeal to individualism in a naive attempt to lessen the power of words.They fail to realize that the spoken word is the single most powerful tool we have to convey intent. People don't have the time to get to know you personally. Sorry. Wouldn't it have been much easier to use words according to conventional understanding? I'd love to hear how "Yo, home slice" would be digested next time someone comes in for a job interview.
|
On May 05 2012 02:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:49 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:48 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:46 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:
[quote]
There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation.
People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld.
The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality. Er, no, actually it isn't reality at all. If I look at a tree and think it's a tree, but it turns out it's really just an exceedingly clever artificial cardboard cutout, then my perception doesn't properly map to reality. The difference being that none of the arbitrary 'points' you have make sense. Calling someone a nigger may not 'make' you a racists, but it sure as well will make people think you are. Not a bad start. Yes, and those people are unjustified in thinking so. There are plenty of people who think being a homosexual means you are a promiscuous, but they are nevertheless wrong. I think it best to focus more on your own personal integrity rather than trying to please everyone; you're inevitably going to lose.
Wrong again, Your behavior (by virtue of being disrespectful enough to do that ) is justifacation enough. The rest of your post doesn't even make sense. Abstractly talking about homosexuality and then jumping over to 'integrity" as if that word could even apply to a personality like destiny is just....
You reap what you sow.
|
Wow...I'm really disappointed in this community...
You can think whatever you want about a player, but when you put the lives of a whole team at stake, that's fucking disgusting.
Shame on those who messaged the sponsors...that's just disgraceful.
|
Like incontrol said yesterday on SotG, this self important bullshit drama just hurts the community and esports, sponsors will be less likely to invest if every time somebody says a no-no the entire community shitstorms right at the sponsors.
If you have a problem with a player or caster tell him or stop supporting, don't go running to the sponsors like a little bitch, even in kindergarten it was considered a faux pas only there for weaklings, internet and anonymity however cause people to act like toddlers once again.
|
On May 05 2012 02:51 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:45 adrenaLinG wrote:On May 05 2012 02:41 Caladbolg wrote:
Any company with PR smarts would drop someone accused of racism (especially when there's tangible proof) unless they thought that his/her value as their representative outweighs the potential damage to their image and goodwill. At the end of the day, it's about keeping the sponsor's name clean, so they can keep on sponsoring the scene. If the sponsor believes that any particular action will damage them beyond a certain level of exposure and advertisement, then they will act.
Which is why, one way or another, Destiny would have had it coming. This particular form of "emailing sponsors" is just the shortest route to the inevitable parting of ways. The image of Quantic's sponsors =/= the form of Destiny's popularity. This is the same thing that's happening in the UFC where Dana White is taking down fighters who post racist or insulting things on their twitter. He's not really saying the fights are racist: he's just trying to protect the image of the UFC and mixed-martial arts from being ruined by crassness. Dana himself is a walking cussball. But he knows there's a certain line that he cannot cross (racism, bigotry, etc), else he'll lose the support of the big businesses and corporations that help keep the UFC a thriving company.
It's all about the money. In other words, not being racist and not alienating large segments of the population is profitable. Money is colour-blind and that's a good thing. No one should think companies are pulling these sponsorships because they are moral. No, they are doing so because they are rational. Which is essentially what I've been arguing for the last 10 pages. Although, I'd think it better to say money is anti-social rather than colourblind. Yes, but you and I differ in what you view society to be. It's not one that should be driven rational self-interested individuals; if individuals behaved like corporations, the world we live in would be a really different place
It would be a rather awful place. I'm all for making actual, pervasive bigotry illegal. By the same token, however, I do not believe angry outbursts featuring racial slurs qualify as infringing upon anyone's rights.
If it were up to me, there wouldn't be anything close to a free market, because we'd be socialist, but unfortunately it's not up to me.
|
On May 05 2012 02:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 02:49 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:48 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:46 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:40 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:38 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:35 Leth0 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:31 Shiori wrote:On May 05 2012 02:28 adrenaLinG wrote:
[quote]
There is a blurring of the public and private spheres of life. While you consider things like your Facebook page to be private, it is actually public. If you send out racist Facebook updates, that is considered a public statement and not a private conversation.
People have lost jobs for things they have said on Facebook, and these cases have routinely been upheld.
The difference between your Facebook and Destiny streaming is that he is held to a higher standard given his numbers of audience and the fact that he is representing esports. People will cry that this is a double standard, but it is a double standard. We hold different people to different expectations. It's why we expect a lot more professionalism from our athletes and our politicians. You seem to be missing my point. We hold people to double standards not because there's anything terribly meritorious about the double standard, but because it makes company X more money to just sack the poor fool than do PR damage control. It's literally that simple. While, as I said, I understand Quantic's decision to sack Destiny, on a purely moral level I see nothing particularly offensive about his behaviour beyond the immorality that accompanies all malicious insulting (which virtually every Sc2 player is guilty of) because I don't think the use of a racial slur represents any serious racial prejudice in Destiny's character. When you insult someone, you aim to hurt them. That's the sin, right there. It's not how you say it or how successfully you hurt them; it's what you mean to do. And in that regard, all people who insult other people are equally guilty. I'd like to see a world in which people react to behaviour that offends them not by throwing a tantrum until it's removed from their sight (provided this behaviour doesn't actually infringe upon anyone's rights) but rather by simply voting with their wallet and not contributing to the offensive person. Speak for yourself. It's about respect, decency , and little common sense. If you see nothing 'offensive' about the way destiny acts then you are blind. He says the shit he does PURELY to offend somebody (because he lost a game of starcraft) as if that merit's his behavior. That's why I said "virtually." If I lose 20 games straight and someone cheeses me, it's not impossible that I'll call them "a piece of shit." You need to learn the distinction between calling someone a 'piece of shit' and crossing the line into hate filled racist attacks. If you don't want people to think you are a racist then don't call someone a nigger every time you get upset. Simple. Whether someone thinks you are a racist is outside of your control. What matters is whether you actually are one, and most people, if they thought about it for awhile, would realize that calling people 'niggers' when one is upset does not a racist make. And for the record, the level of hate behind "you're a piece of shit" and "you're a nigger" is probably exactly equivalent in all cases of Sc2 rage, unless you stumble across someone who somehow knows their opponent is black and actually does hate black people. Wrong. A person's perception of you (based on how you act and the things you say) IS reality. Er, no, actually it isn't reality at all. If I look at a tree and think it's a tree, but it turns out it's really just an exceedingly clever artificial cardboard cutout, then my perception doesn't properly map to reality. The difference being that none of the arbitrary 'points' you have make sense. Calling someone a nigger may not 'make' you a racists, but it sure as well will make people think you are. Not a bad start. Yes, and those people are unjustified in thinking so. There are plenty of people who think being a homosexual means you are a promiscuous, but they are nevertheless wrong. I think it best to focus more on your own personal integrity rather than trying to please everyone; you're inevitably going to lose.
They may be factually wrong, but the fact that people think being a homosexual means promiscuity means that stereotypes are formed, and that hurts all homosexuals. Whether it's true or not. And that's exactly the language and structure that Destiny is helping to perpetuate.
|
All aboard the lynching train. First stop Katu, followed by Orb, then Destiny, who will be next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
