|
Alex is verbose, and you owe it to yourself (and the rest of us) to read the statement in its entirety. Remember, when making comments/claims to provide proper evidence, facts etc. Arguments based on incorrect assumptions, facts and straw men, will be dealt with swiftly. If in doubt, PM a mod or ask IRC. Do NOT spread misinformation, when in doubt, check your sources. In short, be smart. Alex comments on Idra: Orbs Statement: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=319038Personal attacks against other posters in this thread will be met with a ban -- 14:20 KST |
On March 10 2012 08:47 Megabuster123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:46 zefreak wrote:
So this thread has officially been invaded by philosophy undergrads eager to apply their recently acquired 'knowledge'.
Because calling someone a nigger definitely requires philosophical discussion! As much as I laughed at the accuracy of this post. Everything requires some degree of philosophical inquiry.
The most important objects of philosophical investigation are those which don't appear to require investigation.
You would have learned this lesson if you had ever been a philosophy undergrad, rather than simply a mocker of same.
edit: @ op not megabuster, sorry
|
On March 10 2012 08:48 iloveAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:46 CommanchyWattkins wrote:
ah so true.... Eg only cares if reddit cares.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur. cunt motherfucking cocksucker is so much more enjoyable to say imo
cocksucker is just as bad of an insult tbh it has a sexist and homophobic vibe to it.
|
On March 10 2012 08:46 zefreak wrote:
So this thread has officially been invaded by philosophy undergrads eager to apply their recently acquired 'knowledge'.
Because calling someone a nigger definitely requires philosophical discussion!
Starcraft 2 lead to a lot of younger teenage members to join, and at that age, they are still dealing with increased levels of testosterone, which makes people have stronger urges to argue.
|
On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 07:57 SeraKuDA wrote:
[quote]
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters. You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example? When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol. If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously.
His well thought out and rational thoughts should be criticized based on the legitimacy of his argument, not your perception of his character. A neo-nazi might have very acute observations regarding geomorpholigical debris flow movement. One doesn't relate to the other.
|
On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 07:57 SeraKuDA wrote:
[quote]
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters. You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example? When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol. If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously.
It's like this thread has become an advice column where people need to educate each other on the basic social etiquette.
I'm agreeing with you, by the way.
|
On March 10 2012 08:50 Megabuster123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. His well thought out and rational thoughts should be criticized based on the legitimacy of his argument, not your perception of his character. A neo-nazi might have very acute observations regarding geomorpholigical debris flow movement. One doesn't relate to the other.
Straw man. He's says he's typing essays in favor of equality while at the same time using language that is prejudiced. The two are in direct conflict.
|
On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 07:57 SeraKuDA wrote:
[quote]
Times have changed in the sense that the words don't have the same connotation to them. None of us grew up during slavery, and only our parents, and grandparents have a real understanding of what it was like to live in a very racist era. This is a new time, new generation, and our culture is diversified. The words don't carry the same weight they once did, and thus when spoken people generally aren't offended. It's the select few, the sensitive ones, that cry out over the use of them. Those people are the problem-starters. You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example? When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol. If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously.
Pretty sure I'm asking people precisely that: don't take irrational rage speech seriously.
Intent is really all that matters, IMO.
|
On March 10 2012 08:49 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:48 iloveAthene wrote:On March 10 2012 08:46 CommanchyWattkins wrote:
ah so true.... Eg only cares if reddit cares.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur. cunt motherfucking cocksucker is so much more enjoyable to say imo cocksucker is just as bad of an insult tbh it has a sexist and homophobic vibe to it.
ehh Well I'm not into all the "politically correct" bullshit. But I still never have called anyone, no matter their race, a nigger.
|
On March 10 2012 08:49 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:48 iloveAthene wrote:On March 10 2012 08:46 CommanchyWattkins wrote:
ah so true.... Eg only cares if reddit cares.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur. cunt motherfucking cocksucker is so much more enjoyable to say imo cocksucker is just as bad of an insult tbh it has a sexist and homophobic vibe to it.
Girlfriends :D
|
On March 10 2012 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:47 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:46 zefreak wrote:
So this thread has officially been invaded by philosophy undergrads eager to apply their recently acquired 'knowledge'.
Because calling someone a nigger definitely requires philosophical discussion! As much as I laughed at the accuracy of this post. Everything requires some degree of philosophical inquiry. The most important objects of philosophical investigation are those which don't appear to require investigation. You would have learned this lesson if you had ever been a philosophy undergrad, rather than simply a mocker of same.
Sounds plausible, very 'wisdom of the orient'-y.
Sorry, I'm not one for writing multiple paragraphs of clumsily-worded exposition about ethics when you could have just said 'im a utilitarian, you're a kantian'.
Being able to express yourself simply without resorting to verbal diarrhea is a useful skill to have
|
On March 10 2012 08:52 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:50 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:
[quote]
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. His well thought out and rational thoughts should be criticized based on the legitimacy of his argument, not your perception of his character. A neo-nazi might have very acute observations regarding geomorpholigical debris flow movement. One doesn't relate to the other. Straw man. He's says he's typing essays in favor of equality while at the same time using language that is prejudiced. The two are in direct conflict.
I'm not doing the two at the same time, nor in the same frame of mind. There's no direct conflict, here, unless I seriously thought that the word "faggot" necessarily implies something sinister about the mind of the speaker, and I don't.
|
On March 10 2012 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:49 Zaros wrote:On March 10 2012 08:48 iloveAthene wrote:On March 10 2012 08:46 CommanchyWattkins wrote:
ah so true.... Eg only cares if reddit cares.
SIGHHH.... saying the N word over a game shows that Orb had little respect towards black people. Why say Nigger when there are so many other slurs to use \o_O/.
Using Nigger as a way to express your rage makes orb look like a redneck ... I mean ffs, just call the other person a fucker or mother fucker... Pathetic to use a racial slur. cunt motherfucking cocksucker is so much more enjoyable to say imo cocksucker is just as bad of an insult tbh it has a sexist and homophobic vibe to it. Girlfriends :D
what?
|
On March 10 2012 08:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. Pretty sure I'm asking people precisely that: don't take irrational rage speech seriously. Intent is really all that matters, IMO.
But what about the power of particular words to propagate bad intent in those who are also part of the discourse and may be (even subconsciously) motivated by the violence in the language that is used? Wouldn't you then have an ethical imperative, even in your terms, to not use such language, independent of the moral imperative concerning your own intent?
My point is that any ethical philosophy should include an injunction about provoking others to commit wrong actions, even obliquely.
|
On March 10 2012 08:44 figq wrote:
And then the second thing to mention - though both are obviously inseparable - is just the fact that a CEO would be so vulnerable, in his reasoning, to a word, by itself. As far as not willing to write it, read it, hear it. You know, most German people I've met don't have such fearful reaction about Hitler jokes, the holocaust, or swastikas. They appreciate context, humor, intent. In Slasher's public shows, you can often hear jew jokes, and Slasher himself laughs about them, or even initiates them. Why is that? It's because it's more important what people actually mean.
Eh, disregarding the CEO's own reaction it is my hope that broadcasters in any notable event would consider professionalism in the realm of other sports when they speak. I also believe that a word is a word (but, too, understand that I live in Alaska where racism is not about words, but about the mocking of accents and actions, and the victims are natives and pretty much no one else), but humans hold to taboo things and words are so important to communication that it is inevitable. Even if the bad words of today are disarmed in another few hundred years, there will be new ones. That said, I think that in expecting the rest of the world to respect e-sports, we first have to behave in a way that society finds respectful. No naughty words, crudeness at a minimum, jokes on a tasteful level -- that sort of thing.
So yes, the CEO does perhaps react in a kneejerk fashion to a very high profile word often used in a derogatory manner. But, even if he had no personal reaction at all, I think the level of disapproval should have been the same. Sometimes in order to thrive you have to compromise, and for E-sports I think it's a worthy compromise to ask our high profile members to act in a respectful manner across cultural boundaries.
|
On March 10 2012 08:55 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On March 10 2012 08:47 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:46 zefreak wrote:
So this thread has officially been invaded by philosophy undergrads eager to apply their recently acquired 'knowledge'.
Because calling someone a nigger definitely requires philosophical discussion! As much as I laughed at the accuracy of this post. Everything requires some degree of philosophical inquiry. The most important objects of philosophical investigation are those which don't appear to require investigation. You would have learned this lesson if you had ever been a philosophy undergrad, rather than simply a mocker of same. Sounds plausible, very 'wisdom of the orient'-y. Sorry, I'm not one for writing multiple paragraphs of clumsily-worded exposition about ethics when you could have just said 'im a utilitarian, you're a kantian'. Being able to express yourself simply without resorting to verbal diarrhea is a useful skill to have
I'm not a utilitarian, I'm a Confucian.
|
On March 10 2012 08:52 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:50 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:
[quote]
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. His well thought out and rational thoughts should be criticized based on the legitimacy of his argument, not your perception of his character. A neo-nazi might have very acute observations regarding geomorpholigical debris flow movement. One doesn't relate to the other. Straw man. He's says he's typing essays in favor of equality while at the same time using language that is prejudiced. The two are in direct conflict.
lol.
The point is that his points should be judged based on the merit of his argument, not on his actions. They're separate. If hitler argues for human rights, him being a neo-nazi shouldn't come into play when criticizing his work. He may just act differently than his mental processes because he's of weak moral character, I don't know. That's the only point I was really getting at.
|
On March 10 2012 08:21 gulati wrote:
I really miss the days of gaming where you could speak your mind and act like a human being, without red tape and censorship everywhere. I am proud to admit that I speak extremely foul, vulgar and hateful, and I will never, ever change who I am or my speech patterns to please anybody, regardless of how big the paycheck becomes.
Look up Aris from the FGC then, you guys seem very similar. Also, you seem to be missing the point that civility is a GOOD thing. If someone isn't civil, then yes, I believe penalties should be enforced, especially at a professional level.
|
On March 10 2012 08:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:52 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:
[quote]
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. Pretty sure I'm asking people precisely that: don't take irrational rage speech seriously. Intent is really all that matters, IMO. But what about the power of particular words to propagate bad intent in those who are also part of the discourse and may be (even subconsciously) motivated by the violence in the language that is used? Wouldn't you then have an ethical imperative, even in your terms, to not use such language, independent of the moral imperative concerning your own intent? My point is that any ethical philosophy should include an injunction about provoking others to commit wrong actions, even obliquely.
Yeah, but I don't think that has much to do with someone generically insulting someone else with a hateful word. I mean, it's not really reasonable to suppose that that category of speech is inciting much at all.
|
So many people saying, "But is he really a racist?"
The word was chosen because it is particularly hurtful. The reason why it is so hurtful is because of the racist overtones. If you use the word's racist overtones to be as hurtful as possible, that's a racist usage. Whether or not the speaker is 'really' a racist inside their mind or whatever does not matter.
Is it appropriate behavior to choose to appear like a racist to be as hurtful as possible? Are you a good spokesperson for a company if you aren't 'really' a racist, you just choose to appear that way to make people angry?
Everyone is free to speak your mind. This isn't about freedom or speech or making things illegal. It's about being aware of how other people understand your words when you speak in public.
|
On March 10 2012 08:50 Megabuster123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:48 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:45 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:On March 10 2012 08:28 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:25 Thrombozyt wrote:On March 10 2012 08:12 Klondikebar wrote:On March 10 2012 08:11 Megabuster123 wrote:On March 10 2012 08:07 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
You know what? Fuck you and people like you who willfully remain grossly ignorant of the world in which we live. Try growing up as a minority. We have a very real understanding of what it's like to grow up in a very racist era. Would you like an example?
When my family went to a restaurant during pride week in my city my father would not go to the bathroom by himself because "he didn't want the faggots doing anything to him in there." I am not being overly sensitive. I am reacting to a word that is regularly thrown in my face with hatred and vitriol.
If you legitimately believe that nigger means the same thing today that it did 20 years ago you're completely lost. If you legitimately believe that you're in a position to understand what nigger means then you should never be given a platform from which to speak. Let me rephrase this: If you know what you are talking about, you should never be heard. The prevalence of this thought is the major problem of modern democracy. My assumption there was that he was a white guy acting like he understood discrimination. He responded that he is in fact, half black. While I still vehemently disagree with his point of view he does ACTUALLY speak with more authority than any non-minority that posts in this thread. If your defense is going to be subjective, then you can't really argue it, since by definition literally everyone not already discriminated against is incapable of arguing with you. To me, that's just a convenient excuse not to think, and this is coming from someone who regularly types essays trying to convince people that homosexuality is deserving of the same rights as heterosexuality. Apparently all of this is invalidated by the fact that I've called people "faggots" before when I'm angry. Surely you see how using discriminatory language erodes your credibility when you argue for equality. Perhaps if deliberate, thought-out essays were in the same category of discourse as irrational rage-speech, then yeah. Irrational rage speech doesn't get a free pass. If you can't maintain some level of control over yourself when you get upset then don't expect people to take you seriously. His well thought out and rational thoughts should be criticized based on the legitimacy of his argument, not your perception of his character. A neo-nazi might have very acute observations regarding geomorpholigical debris flow movement. One doesn't relate to the other.
You perspective is logical, just not realistic. This worldview is exactly the kind of disconnect that exists in the online gaming community from the rest of the world, that average people can/should legitimately complain about.
Unfortunately we don't live in a world where we evaluate everything on its objective merits. We just it first on it's perceived value, credibility and stereotypes. Improving and protecting these perceptions matter, online and in real life.
I'm sure the Unabomber had some interesting things to say, for instance. Until he started, you now, mailing bombs. It kind of hurt his credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
