On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
There's a whole lot of emphatic words besides "rape" that are fine to use and don't trivialize rape/rape victims/don't evince a misogynistic outlook
Does using the word "fuck" trivialize sex? (Some people think so) There are other words that can be used to express "I'm fuckin awesome", too. But I don't think it necessarily trivializes sex, depending on the context, that's what my point is. Sure, in some cases using certain colloquial language isn't worth it when it is likely to be interpreted the wrong way by a significant audience, but in other cases, it may be.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
This is also in response to what you said about my post. First off c'mon man, don't be ridiculous.
There is a specific historical context in which we live and in which you need to consider words because of that. The brutally and continuously dominated state in which black people lived, where they were relentlessly beaten, creates a specific context. Slaves were raped constantly, but this is not to demean the condition of other women, even spousal rape was legal more recently than slavery.
Now to explain why that was not offensive unlike you cavalierly throwing around "raped" among your friends; it used the words you had suggested were possibly more offensive than rape as an appropriate descriptor in a context that is difficult to misconstrue. I also described an historical situation in which rape occurred, unfortunate but an appropriate use of the word. You using the word casually disrespects the trauma suffered by others in our society, (also applies to nigger, obviously) that is why it is offensive, to be honest I am not all that concerned about it.
I just don't think rape is really ever the best word to use in the context of SC2 that was the only point I was trying to make, unless you literally want to go rape your opponent.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
The fact that you have to resort to such ridiculous extremes means you have a straw man's argument.
Even an eight year old child would be able to understand the difference between the word 'rape' and 'history'. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
Not at all. There's a big difference between the importance of discretion when choosing to use an English word with the definition that "history" has and one with the definition that "rape" has. On top of that, the history of "rape" is a lot more fraught than the history of "history," as it were.
Sometimes the social and historical contexts of words mean that they shouldn't be used by certain people or under certain circumstances, just as it's generally agreed that white people shouldn't address black people as "nigger."
I would contend that people should be kind (or conscientious or thoughtful or what have you) enough to restrict their use of the word "rape" to when they mean "rape" in a sense that lives up to the actual act. I have friends and even a sister who are rape victims and it turns my stomach when people use the word glibly.
I'm not asking for censorship, just sane diction that takes into account the overall meaning of words and doesn't rely on hiding behind relativism and "context." Once again, there's plenty of other perfectly good words that can take its place while not calling to mind one of the worst crimes possible. Personally, I like a nice, emphatic "destroyed."
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
This is also in response to what you said about my post. First off c'mon man, don't be ridiculous.
There is a specific historical context in which we live and in which you need to consider words because of that. The brutally and continuously dominated state in which black people lived, where they were relentlessly beaten, creates a specific context. Slaves were raped constantly, but this is not to demean the condition of other women, even spousal rape was legal more recently than slavery.
Now to explain why that was not offensive unlike you cavalierly throwing around "raped" among your friends; it used the words you had suggested were possibly more offensive than rape as an appropriate descriptor in a context that is difficult to misconstrue. I also described an historical situation in which rape occurred, unfortunate but an appropriate use of the word. You using the word casually disrespects the trauma suffered by others in our society, (also applies to nigger, obviously) that is why it is offensive, to be honest I am not all that concerned about it.
I just don't think rape is really ever the best word to use in the context of SC2 that was the only point I was trying to make, unless you literally want to go rape your opponent.
I completely agree with the part I bolded out -- and when we talk about "specific historical context in which we live" I mean precisely the localized context in which the word is used. You can't have it both ways, either we don't consider "specific historical context in which we live" and things have fixed meaning all the time, or you have to allow language to grow and be allow it to take meaning contextually.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
The fact that you have to resort to such ridiculous extremes means you have a straw man's argument.
Even an eight year old child would be able to understand the difference between the word 'rape' and 'history'. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you read my long post on "rape" and "gay" you'd know that I think there is quite the difference between those words, and "history".
These are words some feminists think should never be used (on the left). I say that at the point where these words no longer carry their sexist taint (because almost nobody thinks of only men when we say "mankind"), they should be used. So I gave an extreme example that is illustrative of this point.
On June 03 2011 08:23 hugman wrote: I love reading people's rationalizations of their overuse of derogatory words. How about you just mature and try to speak more eloquently instead.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
Not at all. There's a big difference between the importance of discretion when choosing to use an English word with the definition that "history" has and one with the definition that "rape" has. On top of that, the history of "rape" is a lot more fraught than the history of "history," as it were.
Sometimes the social and historical contexts of words mean that they shouldn't be used by certain people or under certain circumstances, just as it's generally agreed that white people shouldn't address black people as "nigger."
I would contend that people should be kind (or conscientious or thoughtful or what have you) enough to restrict their use of the word "rape" to when they mean "rape" in a sense that lives up to the actual act. I have friends and even a sister who are rape victims and it turns my stomach when people use the word glibly.
I'm not asking for censorship, just sane diction that takes into account the overall meaning of words and doesn't rely on hiding behind relativism and "context." Once again, there's plenty of other perfectly good words that can take its place while not calling to mind one of the worst crimes possible. Personally, I like a nice, emphatic "destroyed."
If you're not asking for censorship, then do you still think it is wrong for me to use the term "rape" describing a game with a friend who takes 0 offense to it and is not misogynist? If you think it's wrong, then it sure sounds like you're asking for people to censor themselves, if not, then I'd tend to agree with you.
I DO agree people hide behind relativism/context arguments to justify being insensitive, but I don't think that's what I've been doing. Regarding desensitization to rape and similar things and being glib about violence, I agree that that's a bad thing, and I think culturally people are becoming more b-tarded and ignorant, but that's another discussion.
I know that a few years ago I would have agreed with Destiny, other than the fact the comparison of "murder" and "nuke" to "rape" is not acceptable because as incontrol said "there is no upgrade so a marine can rape a zergling."
Today I feel like hugman is dead on, The words being discussed are not eloquent or even useful. The massive debate in this thread makes clear the vagueness surrounding the terms. They as symbols are bad symbols, their meaning is difficult to infer and many people disregard the context the speaker believes the word is in and overlays their personal context on it. The use of them is defensible but not advisable.
so now your basing your argument on the idea that the word rape isnt the best word to use because it doesnt exactly describe what happened.
and here was me thinking everyone praised the english language precisely because so many different words can be used in the same sentence.
ill make sure to email a complaint in to NASL every time gretorp says scale, becuase lets face it, its not the exactly correct word for the job.
Just because you can use many different words doesn't make all of them equal. The word "rape" does not come close to describing what happens when two people are playing a video game. It is a vague colloquialism, not an elegant or even effective description of the actual events. I will use an example to make my point more clear:
1. "That zerg player got raped." 2. "That zerg player lost the game without ever gaining a lead in supply versus the protoss player."
You can use different words to describe the same thing but all descriptions are not equal. The use of loaded and inherently vague terms is an ineffective means of communication. I'm not really sure why what I'm saying is unclear, I'm having trouble understanding your post well enough to reply. Very suspicious I'm just feeding a giant troll.
Also here is a fascinating essay on language by George Orwell, the argument going on in this thread made me think of it, people should check it out.
The mistake you are making is that your two above statements serve different purposes. The second statement serves to sort of blandly describe the game situation, whereas the first possibly tries to convey the game also with more individual expression/passion. Like, when I win a game of SC2, I'm going to say something like "fuck yeah", not "I am very happy right now because I gained 22 ladder points and convincingly beat a Colossus death ball with good upgrades and micro." I mean obviously colloquialisms serve a purpose with entertainment, that's why Artosis saying "SOO MANY BANELINGS" is a lot more awesome to hear on a cast then "There are 35 banelings in July's army which is much larger than what would normally be seen in this army composition at this stage in the game."
I made the second statement intentionally descriptive rather than emotional, I would consider the primary purpose of both as describing the game. Regardless individual expression/passion is also not ideally conveyed with the word rape, I will add in a third statement for you something along the lines of...
3. That zerg player was relentlessly/brutally/continuously/viscously dominated/smashed/rolled/crushed/beaten/destroyed/stomped by the protoss player.
All of those words convey a level of excitement and passion without the loaded meaning of the word rape.
So you suggest using "relentlessly beaten", or "brutally continuously dominated" instead of "rape".
Can you see how that is like (lol), maybe even more offensive than the word "rape" in that it seems to be a more detailed description of what rape may involve? But even if we veto those combinations, the point is that there are many word choices that are offensive to some minority group, it's a judgement call based on the situation. "Rape" isn't a loaded word when you're using it with your friends who aren't misogynist.
Yes it is. Words have a larger social and historical context whether you like it or not, just as your behavior with around your friends is influenced by society and history.
Of course it has social and historical context, that doesn't mean it's offensive and should not be used.
Also, I could easily say your use of the word "history" is offensive. Have you ever wondered what the social and historical context of that word is? "History" is derived from the Greek "histor" which means "wise man, judge" and I'm pretty sure the Greeks were sexist and considered women inferior to men, and thus your use of the word "history" is tainted in sexism and misogyny and I'm sure there are feminists out there who are offended at your brazen lack of consideration at how offensive the word is to them, even if you're having a private conversation with your friend where nobody knows its etymology.
Do you not see how the above paragraph argument is problematic?
This is also in response to what you said about my post. First off c'mon man, don't be ridiculous.
There is a specific historical context in which we live and in which you need to consider words because of that. The brutally and continuously dominated state in which black people lived, where they were relentlessly beaten, creates a specific context. Slaves were raped constantly, but this is not to demean the condition of other women, even spousal rape was legal more recently than slavery.
Now to explain why that was not offensive unlike you cavalierly throwing around "raped" among your friends; it used the words you had suggested were possibly more offensive than rape as an appropriate descriptor in a context that is difficult to misconstrue. I also described an historical situation in which rape occurred, unfortunate but an appropriate use of the word. You using the word casually disrespects the trauma suffered by others in our society, (also applies to nigger, obviously) that is why it is offensive, to be honest I am not all that concerned about it.
I just don't think rape is really ever the best word to use in the context of SC2 that was the only point I was trying to make, unless you literally want to go rape your opponent.
I completely agree with the part I bolded out -- and when we talk about "specific historical context in which we live" I mean precisely the localized context in which the word is used. You can't have it both ways, either we don't consider "specific historical context in which we live" and things have fixed meaning all the time, or you have to allow language to grow and be allow it to take meaning contextually.
Last post on this. I don't really want to have this argument.
The idea that "allowing language to grow" is stopped by not using a word which describes forced sex to describe competition in an RTS game is just wrong. It makes no sense, language changes all the time, words still have relatively fixed meanings, if everything is totally dependent on context words cease to work as symbols. The words we are discussing are powerful, one has a precise definition of a deplorable act and one is directly related to absolute slavery, only decades from living memory today. Segregation is possibly something your parents remember. That is why it is still way too soon for white people to say "nigga" and it be socially acceptable. You are attempting to very narrowly define context as the conversation you are having, this is myopic, you are having a conversation in a civilization with a history. That is what creates definitions and sensitivities to words, not how you want them to be used.
Words do not change in meaning because you do not like that others are sensitive to their use in your "context," particularly words such as the ones we are discussing.
Welcome to America, we're fucking awesome and able to speak freely. There will always be a faggot who will get offended, nothing wrong with that, which hopefully leads to a intellectual conversation. Understand the use of context and be less of a sensitive cunt or be prepared to have your brain hole raped in todays society, niggas.
On June 03 2011 13:14 RmoteCntrld wrote: Using the word rape in a professional setting is just immature.
are PERSONAL streams a "professional setting"? thats the question.
we do and say certain things within our houses that we can't do at work. we can sing a song to ourselves, we can scratch our asses as we walk around the house naked, or we can decide to run a Nazi white supremacy group meeting every thursday evening . society has absolutely no say in what we do in our own houses. if someone sees us walking around naked in our houses as they peek into our windows, then hey, don't peek!
likewise, the personal streams of progamers act as their internet houses / havens. they can act however they want and do whatever they wish so long as it is legal. they have no obligations to act ethical or morally superior to others. they give us a reality tv-esque window to peek into the lives of a progamer and we VOLUNTARILY look through the window. if you don't like what you see, then stop looking. however, they have no obligations to change themselves because someone disagrees with them. tell JustinTV to make it illegal for their users to use the word rape. tell JustinTV to make it a reportable offense when the N word is used. but in the same sense then you should tell the government to micromanage every thing that goes on in your house as well. if you don't like what they do in their personal setting, then don't listen / watch. complain about it if they start saying these things at MLG or at the GSL or in some professional event but not when its just them having fun.
On June 03 2011 13:21 mattjkim wrote: Welcome to America, we're fucking awesome and able to speak freely. There will always be a faggot who will get offended, nothing wrong with that, which hopefully leads to a intellectual conversation. Understand the use of context and be less of a sensitive cunt or be prepared to have your brain hole raped in todays society, niggas.
You are so admirably real.
Unless I guess there were any gay or black guys in the room and you had to say this out loud.
And you clearly already feel too uncomfortable even typing out nigger instead of nigga, even in this ridiculous little dramatic post on a practically anonymous website.
this episode was pretty boring tbh after you got to a politically correct debate which you ALREADY had on WoC (and was boring there too) although incontrol was so insecure he just had to try and redeem himself in round 2
i think JP should do a better job of moderating the discussion. tyler only got a chance to say about 4 sentences total after all
EPT
