|
On June 08 2011 01:07 Erandorr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 00:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote:
Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin. Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution. If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve. Can you really remove emotions like anger, especially after an important loss for example? What about things like adrenaline that is designed to influence the body in a certain way. You can learn to ignore it but there is no way to remove it , is it? The conscious mind as it is defined by Freud should analyze the reasons for anger, but there is no way to just " turn it of" . You can be aware to a certain extend, but not even the Freud thought in the end of his life that you can truly find every motive for a certain type of behavior.
Certainly there is no *healthy* way of removing negative emotions like anger, guilt, or shame. Tyler's point (as it appears to me - feel free to correct me) is not that you can or should do so. It is simply that by providing your body with a form of pleasure for being angry, your mind will play up your anger in order to drive you towards your pleasurable response. If it feels good to be violent, you will tend to want to be violent - and when you do feel violent, you're likely to feel more violent. For some (the minority), it gets to the point where the slightest provocation from the wrong source can lead to tremendous outbursts.
The overall goal is not to prevent yourself from feeling angry, it is to prevent the anger from driving you to action.
|
On June 07 2011 22:48 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 22:45 Deckkie wrote:I think it was in the last SotG that JP said that he had an interview at the HotS release. This interview was a lot about the multiplayer if I remember correctly, and JP said that it would be shown at MLG. I didnt see the interview and I am unable to find it on the MLG site  Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated  I saw the interview, it was shown near the end, between two series. The interview was about the single player, with one of the writer of the story, I don't think it had any multiplayer elements, atleast the one interview I saw. I don't have the link.
really? JP said he had an interview with dustin browder and it was pure multiplayer talk (or I masively mis heard xD). Sad to see it was not the case
|
Thats the point everyone is missing. There is a huge difference between using trigger words (the use of which actual victimizes the listener by forcing them relive the truma) and words that are simply tacky, insensitive, or in poor taste (retard). That is where the line is. There is no "slippery slope".
"Context" has nothing to do with this. That is a strawman argument and a pretty pathetic one.
It has nothing to do with "philosophy" or ones "approach towards language". Philosophy should not be used as a crutch for ignorant people to argue about things they know nothing about. Please stop.
If it were largely isolated to a few idiots, then fine. You watch their stream once and don't watch it again. The problem is, as was mentioned in the podcast, is that the language has permeated the entire community. A community which is of course male dominated and will continue to be so.
Anyone who uses these words should not have their stream on TeamLiquid. Anyone using them on the forum should be perma banned.
I appreciate that someone tried making the economic argument against using this language. But thats really secondary to moral decency.
|
On June 07 2011 17:50 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 15:07 fantomex wrote:http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline Man some people just take offence to anything. A joke about being raped by dickwolves in a video game turn into a feminist rally against pennyarcade.
You didn't read much of the page I linked (its okay, it was long). Penny-arcade got in trouble because of the way they handled the issue after the fact. (The primary problem being that Mike Krahulik aka Gabe is a huge asshole)
|
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading.
|
Thanks for that post, gods_basement, I agree with you and you put it succinctly.
|
On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading.
But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it.
It would hold as much water as your argument against rape.
Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC."
"We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same."
According to you this would be a good argument.
|
On June 08 2011 04:05 fantomex wrote:
Thats the point everyone is missing. There is a huge difference between using trigger words (the use of which actual victimizes the listener by forcing them relive the truma) and words that are simply tacky, insensitive, or in poor taste (retard). That is where the line is. There is no "slippery slope".
"Context" has nothing to do with this. That is a strawman argument and a pretty pathetic one.
It has nothing to do with "philosophy" or ones "approach towards language". Philosophy should not be used as a crutch for ignorant people to argue about things they know nothing about. Please stop.
If it were largely isolated to a few idiots, then fine. You watch their stream once and don't watch it again. The problem is, as was mentioned in the podcast, is that the language has permeated the entire community. A community which is of course male dominated and will continue to be so.
Anyone who uses these words should not have their stream on TeamLiquid. Anyone using them on the forum should be perma banned.
I appreciate that someone tried making the economic argument against using this language. But thats really secondary to moral decency.
So you say that "philosophy" or "approach towards language" has nothing to do with it. But right before that you express you philosophical approach towards the language by saying context has nothing to do with it. And it seems that approach is anyone who uses words you think are bad should be perma banend and not have their stream featured here. Thats pretty harsh for someone just not agreeing with your personal philosophical beliefs. What other words are on your list of things I shouldn't say?
moral decency is also completely subjective so that argument is pointless. Whats moral and decent is different in every culture and time period.
|
there is not sotg today, right? taking a break?
|
On June 08 2011 03:52 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 22:48 Roggay wrote:On June 07 2011 22:45 Deckkie wrote:I think it was in the last SotG that JP said that he had an interview at the HotS release. This interview was a lot about the multiplayer if I remember correctly, and JP said that it would be shown at MLG. I didnt see the interview and I am unable to find it on the MLG site Did someone see at and does he maybe have a link for me? would be very appreciated I saw the interview, it was shown near the end, between two series. The interview was about the single player, with one of the writer of the story, I don't think it had any multiplayer elements, atleast the one interview I saw. I don't have the link. really? JP said he had an interview with dustin browder and it was pure multiplayer talk (or I masively mis heard xD). Sad to see it was not the case
"The second interview will not be shown from HotS. During power outage, encoding was lost. It will go up on mlgpro.com later this week #mlg"
Don't be sad you'll get it later!
|
On June 08 2011 04:39 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it. It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC." "We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same." According to you this would be a good argument.
lol i see you read my post http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=221237 here, as you employ these tactics quite well.
as far as the rename nukes it was in direct response to something Destiny said on sotg. the context argument was brought up multiple times in this thread.
|
On June 08 2011 00:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 20:46 DjayEl wrote:
Being able to verbalize a violent thought induced by frustratiin by using a word or any other harmless action disables the power of it and prevents the actual increase in entropy of real violence from happening, a phenomenon called catharsis. Thus I believe that if people could not use violent language anymore or being discouraged to do so by setting up too restrictive moral rules, this would result in a great increase of physical violence due to no other ways to release frustration. After all man set himself apart from animals the day he was able to differ physical punishment and replace it with social rules to derivate bad thoughts into something else. Sorry for my bad english. Just sayin. Catharsis virtually guarantees that the person will always feel the need to express their violent and angry emotions. If it feels good to yell bad things and attack inanimate objects, then the mind has an incentive to feel anger. It's better to feel guilt and shame and other anti-action emotions so that violent thoughts and impulses are discouraged. And then man can separate himself from animals by using rational thought to examine why he feels violent and judge whether it's a situation where violence is necessary, and if it's not, learn to remove the impulses. Channeling the impulses into "harmless" outlets is not a true solution. If you feel anger and don't act on it, it's not necessarily repressed. Emotions are not some indestructible forces. The conscious mind can learn to truly remove an emotion like anger from a situation, not just repress it. But catharsis is the opposite of learning to remove it, since it's actually encouraging it, and it makes a true solution more difficult to achieve.
A good read on this topic can be found at:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200909/anger-and-catharsis-myth-metaphor-or-reality
His basic premise: catharsis CAN be a good means of dealing with anger - but not as a hollow exercise like striking a pillow or yelling. Rather, he suggests that (at a later time) you revisit your anger and try to completely express what really made you angry and why. Really, this only further reinforces the "rational thought" part of Tyler's post. He believes that the carthardic activities we normally associate with anger management are detrimental not because they express the anger, but because they don't express the anger we feel adequately.
Though, as with most psychology, it's purely theory and could never definitively be proven - I found it worth the read.
|
On June 08 2011 04:05 fantomex wrote:
Thats the point everyone is missing. There is a huge difference between using trigger words (the use of which actual victimizes the listener by forcing them relive the truma) and words that are simply tacky, insensitive, or in poor taste (retard). That is where the line is. There is no "slippery slope".
"Context" has nothing to do with this. That is a strawman argument and a pretty pathetic one.
It has nothing to do with "philosophy" or ones "approach towards language". Philosophy should not be used as a crutch for ignorant people to argue about things they know nothing about. Please stop.
If it were largely isolated to a few idiots, then fine. You watch their stream once and don't watch it again. The problem is, as was mentioned in the podcast, is that the language has permeated the entire community. A community which is of course male dominated and will continue to be so.
Anyone who uses these words should not have their stream on TeamLiquid. Anyone using them on the forum should be perma banned.
I appreciate that someone tried making the economic argument against using this language. But thats really secondary to moral decency.
I already asked you for a link to a scientifically relevant article that covers this issue of trigger words. If it would relate to rape victims it would be even better. I've been trying to search the issue, but all I get are links to user interface engineering and various other non-related topics.
Rereading your post I am truly amazed at the level at which your brain operates. You strike me as very pro censorship which by itself makes any further argument with you on the subject stupid.
|
On June 08 2011 05:22 gods_basement wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:39 Kiarip wrote:On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it. It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. Then I can say "The point is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to not force family members of victims of nuclear bombings to relive their tragic losses every time a nuclear missile is used in SC." "We can just rename nukes and leave the rest of starcraft unit names the same." According to you this would be a good argument. lol i see you read my post http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=221237 here, as you employ these tactics quite well. as far as the rename nukes it was in direct response to something Destiny said on sotg. the context argument was brought up multiple times in this thread.
Yeah no, I didn't even know that wall of text existed.
I just use common sense.
Ok, I skimmed over your topic... so basically you're a troll?
edit:
since I like to humor trolls here you go:
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
You're using strawman yourself.
This argument isn't there to prove that people's feelings aren't getting hurt. It's to prove that there's no malicious intent in using the word rape, because the context makes it obvious that it's being used to describe something completely different what a person that has been sexually assaulted has experienced.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
Yes, that's the main opposition and that's where the slippery slope argument comes in.
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
This isn't a strawman. The slippery slope argument doesn't argue against saying that 'rape' should no longer be used. Slippery slope argues against the validity of the opposition that you stated earlier, because that same argument is applicable to a much more general subset of words than just rape, so unless you agree to stop using all words like "nuke, disaster, tragedy, loss, death, accident, murder, massacre" etc etc. because they can be associated with traumatic experiences you are using selective reasoning, and the "main opposition" argument doesn't in fact hold true, because there are obvious exceptions to it, so you need to come up with a better argument than that.
Saying that slippery slope is being used aa strawman, is like if I called you stupid, because you decided to name your TL account gods_basement, and you say: "Well this isn't a logical argument"
and then I'm like "OH well that's strawman I'm not arguing that it's a logical argument, I'm just arguing that you're stupid."
|
On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading.
1. Context: You misunderstand the argument -- the idea is that in a given context, the term "rape" might not have anything to do with sexual assault. That is to say: Language evolves--and a given term may evolve to signify something that is completely separate from its original signified. For example, in the statement "That car is sick nasty!", the term "sick" or "nasty" doesn't have ANYTHING remotely to do with the original usage or meaning of the term -- language has evolved to have "sick" mean "cool" in certain contexts, and the argument is that "rape" has similarly evolved in some contexts to mean "majorly defeated".
Your reasoning is off because you always hold the meaning of "rape" to mean sexual assault (or something similar), even when it the term has perhaps evolved in some contexts to mean something different (something not offensive). Language does evolve.
2. "Slippery slope": You say "the point is not to keep everyone happy", which I agree with, that is an impossible task. In the end, it's a judgement call we have to make given a certain scenario on whether its usage is appropriate.
Once again your reasoning is off because the reason you think the term "rape" is "utterly insensitive" no matter how it is used, is because you neglect to consider how the meaning of a term may evolve and change depending on how it's used.
Also, re-making the "slippery slope" argument: Saying "Idra was killing Slush" might be "utterly insensitive" to people that know a person who's been killed, it may act as a "trigger" to that trauma -- do you think we should stop using "killed" as well? The number of people killed is probably comparable to the number of people that are raped. My point is that your claim that the usage of "rape" is utterly insensitive is a pretty subjective / biased claim...
I'm not saying "Yes! We should use the term "rape" whenever we feel like it", I'm saying "It depends"...
|
On June 08 2011 06:16 masterchip27 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:26 gods_basement wrote:
The rape argument has been going on in the gaming scene for quite a while, and many a person has weighed in. I wish to debunk a couple main arguments as well as offer a different perspective. We start with how "rape" is used in the gaming community. (Though my tone is playful, I assure you that the message is very serious. Please excuse my overeager parenthetical asides.)
When a gamer has a dominating performance over another, some say things to the effect of "Wow he got raped!" as an exclamation of how one sided the game was. (We will call those who advocate and employ this word in this context "pro-'rape'-ers," or rapers and rapists for short.) The underlying thought of this phrase is, "This game was so-one sided, it is akin to a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them" (google dictionary).
So two of the Rapists' main arguments are regarding context and the slippery slope. We will analyze them one by one.
The contextual argument is essentially, "Everyone knows that we arent talking about a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them. Its all about the context." However, this is a strawman. No opponents of the word rape think that a rape victim thinks that, while the game is being played, one player is being literally raped.
The main opposition is that to compare these two things is insensitive, and downplays the trauma and terror and all that other good stuff that rape victims live with. You would never say to a rape victim, "Hey, did you see the Lakers play last night? They must have felt the same way you felt when a stranger was inside you when you didn't want him inside you, not knowing whether you would live to see another day."
The slippery slope argument is to say, "If I stop saying rape, where do we stop? Do we stop saying nukes because some Japanese people may be offended?" The underlying idea for this argument is that you cannot keep everyone happy, so this trend can be extended to ludicrous ends. These ludicrous ends are obviously, ludicrous, and so "rape" can't be that bad. (Another strawman) You can just stop saying rape and leave the rest of your lingo intact. The point is not to keep everyone happy, the point is calling a dominating game "rape" is utterly insensitive.
Think of your gut reaction when I first explained how rape is used. Then think of what that reaction would be if you were a victim of rape. Lastly, think if an entire community was deaf to that reaction, and thought it to be oversensitive. I don't want to be part of that community, whether or not i've been raped. (I haven't)
As always, thanks for reading. 1. Context: You misunderstand the argument -- the idea is that in a given context, the term "rape" might not have anything to do with sexual assault. That is to say: Language evolves--and a given term may evolve to signify something that is completely separate from its original signified. For example, in the statement "That car is sick nasty!", the term "sick" or "nasty" doesn't have ANYTHING remotely to do with the original usage or meaning of the term -- language has evolved to have "sick" mean "cool" in certain contexts, and the argument is that "rape" has similarly evolved in some contexts to mean "majorly defeated". Your reasoning is off because you always hold the meaning of "rape" to mean sexual assault (or something similar), even when it the term has perhaps evolved in some contexts to mean something different (something not offensive). Language does evolve. 2. "Slippery slope": You say "the point is not to keep everyone happy", which I agree with, that is an impossible task. In the end, it's a judgement call we have to make given a certain scenario on whether its usage is appropriate. Once again your reasoning is off because the reason you think the term "rape" is "utterly insensitive" no matter how it is used, is because you neglect to consider how the meaning of a term may evolve and change depending on how it's used. Also, re-making the "slippery slope" argument: Saying "Idra was killing Slush" might be "utterly insensitive" to people that know a person who's been killed, it may act as a "trigger" to that trauma -- do you think we should stop using "killed" as well? The number of people killed is probably comparable to the number of people that are raped. My point is that your claim that the usage of "rape" is utterly insensitive is a pretty subjective / biased claim... I'm not saying "Yes! We should use the term "rape" whenever we feel like it", I'm saying "It depends"...
OOPS you just used strawman, but he won't actually go into how he feels on that subject because it will weaken stance by either destroying his only argument against using the word 'rape', or by making his position way too extreme.
|
But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it.
It would hold as much water as your argument against rape.
You don't know what a "Strawman argument" is. You are ignorant of the differences between using the word "rape" and "nuke". If you were aware of the difference you'd realize your argument is silly.
I already asked you for a link to a scientifically relevant article that covers this issue of trigger words. If it would relate to rape victims it would be even better. I've been trying to search the issue, but all I get are links to user interface engineering and various other non-related topics. Read the link I already posted and you will find literally more information on the subject then you will be able to absorb.
You strike me as very pro censorship... You don't know what "censorship" means. Feel free to talk how ever you want on whatever platform will let you. Twitter/blog/streaming. Its not Teamliquids job to promote your stream or allow you to use the forum. Quite the opposite: Teamliquid may consider its job to promote streams that reflect positively on the community and maintain a forum that isn't full of retards.
Your reasoning is off because you always hold the meaning of "rape" to mean sexual assault (or something similar), even when it the term has perhaps evolved in some contexts to mean something different (something not offensive). Language does evolve. This is a good example of using "philosophy" to argue about a topic you aren't informed about. You can try convincing me the sky is orange because language "evolves", but you'd be equally wrong in both cases. First of all, the word hasn't evolved at all outside of an extremely narrow culture of gaming fandom. And secondly, your "evolved" definition of the word is... what exactly? Its not all that different from the actual meaning of the word (hint: saying its not "literal" isn't evolving the definition). Its not like the word "Fag", which evolved (over a long period of time) to mean two entirely different things that don't relate to each other in the slighest.
Slippery slope argues against the validity of the opposition that you stated earlier, because that same argument is applicable to a much more general subset of words than just rape The same argument isn't applicable. Thats kind of the point.
|
Also, re-making the "slippery slope" argument: Saying "Idra was killing Slush" might be "utterly insensitive" to people that know a person who's been killed, it may act as a "trigger" to that trauma -- do you think we should stop using "killed" as well? The number of people killed is probably comparable to the number of people that are raped. My point is that your claim that the usage of "rape" is utterly insensitive is a pretty subjective / biased claim...
As Incontrol stated within sotg, the term "killed" is valid because we are talking within the context of a strategy game were killing is part of the game. It would be pretty silly to take this word out of its original meaning. That is also why rape is a completely different issue (or do you have any / command to actually rape marines?) because it is not used in it's original meaning.
I also don't get why claiming "rape is insensitive is subjective or biased. It is a term that is not within the context of the game and is not as manifested in gamer language as words like "rush" or "destroy". You don't have to be a rape victim to be offended by it and I don't think it would be a huge problem to cut it out of your caster repertoire as long as you don't want to take some sort of stand against people forbidding your vocabulary.
|
Can a mod make a new thread about casting language so people stop filling this thread with shit that isn't related to SOTG at all besides the 1 hour they spent discussing it?
|
On June 08 2011 06:38 fantomex wrote:Show nested quote +But... if I make a new thread, which completely ignores this issue (and thus isn't a strawman) that says, "Rename Nukes, because Japan got nuked and tens of thousands of people died because of it.
It would hold as much water as your argument against rape. You don't know what a "Strawman argument" is. You are ignorant of the differences between using the word "rape" and "nuke". If you were aware of the difference you'd realize your argument is silly.
Um... yeah I do. It's not strawman to argue lack of validity in your opposition's arguments. Sure a lot of them come of as strawman because I don't take the necessary time to wrap it all together but it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain how this works.
You don't know what "censorship" means. Feel free to talk how ever you want on whatever platform will let you. Twitter/blog/streaming. Its not Teamliquids job to promote your stream or allow you to use the forum. Quite the opposite: Teamliquid may consider its job to promote streams that reflect positively on the community and maintain a forum that isn't full of retards.
oh noez, you used the 'r' word (retards not rape >_>.) No but really, I agree it depends on the platform. Is TL gonna profit in the end from making 'rape' a banned word on the streams they feature? Well... I don't know, I don't think they know either, but they have the absolute right to do that, because they're providing streamers with a platform like you said. But are people gonna stop watching Destiny's stream just because it stops being featured on TL? probably not.
So... basically this is heading towards a philosophical debate. If you're just arguing whether or not TL should slowly get streams to stop using the word? well I think right now it may not better but it will be a good idea sooner or later, but in the end they can't stop people from streaming stuff they don't like other than by removing their stream from their list, so it's not really gonna change much.
Show nested quote +Your reasoning is off because you always hold the meaning of "rape" to mean sexual assault (or something similar), even when it the term has perhaps evolved in some contexts to mean something different (something not offensive). Language does evolve. This is a good example of using "philosophy" to argue about a topic you aren't informed about. You can try convincing me the sky is orange because language "evolves", but you'd be equally wrong in both cases.
He's only wrong in one case. Orange isn't evolving to mean blue... Rape obviously doesn't mean the same exact thing in different contexts.
edit:
As Incontrol stated within sotg, the term "killed" is valid because we are talking within the context of a strategy game were killing is part of the game. It would be pretty silly to take this word out of its original meaning. That is also why rape is a completely different issue (or do you have any / command to actually rape marines?) because it is not used in it's original meaning.
I also don't get why claiming "rape is insensitive is subjective or biased. It is a term that is not within the context of the game and is not as manifested in gamer language as words like "rush" or "destroy". You don't have to be a rape victim to be offended by it and I don't think it would be a huge problem to cut it out of your caster repertoire as long as you don't want to take some sort of stand against people forbidding your vocabulary.
saying that the word rape isn't as manifested in gamer language as rush and destroy is subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
