|
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 08:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:56 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
This seems to be the point of contention. I think language is a little more insidious than you give it credit for.
|
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.
See, that's a great idea, because insulting someones mother doesn't exclude anyone. Except Bruce Wayne 
|
On March 10 2012 08:59 Defacer 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. 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.
Have you read his manifesto? I actually kinda got worried with how much I agreed with him
|
On March 10 2012 08:59 Defacer 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. 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.
I can accept that, I understand that but I'll never argue in favor of that line of thinking because I really disagree with that way of viewing the world. People are too easily side tracked by shit that doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
|
Just have to say thanks for telling us your side.
|
On March 10 2012 09:00 iloveAthene wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:59 Defacer wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Have you read his manifesto? I actually kinda got worried with how much I agreed with him
I read some of it, then I realized I'm not going to invest too much time on it. You know. Because of the whole bombs-in-the-mail thing.
|
Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:44 figq wrote:Alright, I apologize for having to post a third time about the same topic, apparently my thoughts about it come to me very slowly. My previous two responses were about EG's policy, because their official decision can be associated with them as an organization: + Show Spoiler [previous posts] +On March 09 2012 13:20 figq wrote:
Well, EG is free to hire and fire whoever they want, and the esports audience is free to follow Orb's excellent casting to whatever other leagues that are lucky enough to get him as a caster.
As I said in the other thread, I consider all this in the end more of an attack that hurts EG (for losing Orb as a caster), than an attack that hurts Orb, who will continue to be such a great caster anyway, and probably find an even better position. On March 09 2012 23:27 figq wrote:
As I said before, EG, of course, is free to hire and fire people as they wish, but after some more contemplation, I can't hide that I'm personally disappointed with EG (yet again). In a case that revolves around what usually would be called "progressive thinking" (though I dislike the term, as I find it absurd and relative), issuing any kind of irreversible punishment is disturbing. The whole premise of overcoming any kind of bigotry and segregation is the belief in the human ability to adapt, change, evolve and not be set in stone by the past. In view of this, I find it disheartening to see doors being closed forever, for anyone, even for a murderer, let alone for a verbal abuser. That's not a sign of purity of principles, but rather a sign of fear and weakness. It took me some time to realize what was it that I found so subtly disturbing in EG's official position, and then I realized it was this. However, this post is more about Alex Garfield's personal reasoning, which he outlines so eloquently in the OP, and which of course cannot be fully attributed to EG as a whole. Three things bothered me about the presentation of the case by Alex. First of all, he didn't manage to convince me. He had a very interesting preface designed around pointing out how much he can't stand a word. Then he proceeded to announce that his employee is therefore fired, never to return. Sure, a CEO's decision-making process is solely under his own power, and dictatorship, if you will. But then again why is this decision-making even presented to the public. It didn't seem substantiated enough for me. Basically, it's at the same level as "I hate black people, so I fired that black guy". I'm trying to be supportive of Alex about his personal phobia of the word "nigger", but I wouldn't expect a CEO to be so open about applying professional decisions about people's career, based on his own personal reaction towards something as simple as a word. 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. I can write a system of equations using for variables "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the equations work just the same. Has mathematics not witnessed the centuries of oppression? It has, it existed all along, but it doesn't care about formal sequences of characters, only about the value you put behind them. I can write a computer program and replace all identifiers in it with "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the program works just the same. It's also based inherently on the formal languages that have basis in mathematics and more specifically logic. The understanding that there's a great separation between an identifier and the value that it carries is fundamental for the existence of modern computers - and thus computer games. So, especially in the gaming community, people are much more likely to comprehend that difference between symbols, avatars, nicknames, and the actual value behind them. I'm surprised, and a little scared, that a CEO within the gaming industry would have so much hard time given by a word. And that it would be so difficult to separate all its historical connotations with its meaning in a completely different context. Finally, the third thing that bothers me is that apparently the intention is of so very little value. So Alex admits that he doesn't really think Orb to be a racist. Good, I'm glad about that. Apparently that's not enough though, because just calling someone "racist" nowadays is of almost no meaning, as Alex again so very well has described. Then it becomes unclear exactly what is the accusation towards Orb. Apparently his behavior did contain a trait of what could be seen in our modern day as racially offensive language and that's enough for him to be fired, never to return. What about his intentions? If we all agree that in fact he never had any racially offensive intentions to mind and separating people by their color hasn't been a part of his real life reasoning, then again what is his real fault? Is his fault entirely formal, is there any substance to it? It bothers me that a formal fault would be more important than a true character evaluation. For all we know, someone could be an active racist - to the point of actually discriminating people of other races when having the opportunity to get away with it, but still maintain a completely clean sheet in the formal department. Isn't it really more important to analyze people's real intentions and goals rather than their formal means? So to summarize my three posts and their points: - EG is free to conduct their business as they wish, of course - EG loses more than Orb, the attack here could have been against EG - "Progressive" reasoning should not lead to irreversible punishment, even for a murderer - The transition to the decision itself was not convincing enough, and too personal - A CEO in the gaming industry should not be so intimidated by identifiers, by themselves - Value should be more important than a formal expression, especially in the gaming community That said, despite a lot of criticism in my posts, I enjoy Alex's presentations a lot, they are always so educating, well written and a pleasure to read, even when I disagree with many points. So, I thank you. Alex, for taking time to write to us, and I would greatly appreciate any future threads of yours too, hopefully on less troubling matters for EG.
You, sir or madam have written a post so handsome and eloquent, I could give you a kiss. The thread probably should have just ended after this.
|
On March 10 2012 09:01 Megabuster123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:59 Defacer wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I can accept that, I understand that but I'll never argue in favor of that line of thinking because I really disagree with that way of viewing the world. People are too easily side tracked by shit that doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
Keep fighting the good fight sir. We can't take people's arguments for granted, the same way we can't take their reputations for granted.
|
Signs don't work like variables in programming. You can't just strip them out and give them a new meaning.
The reduction of semiotic systems to purely formal operation is fallacious.
|
One factor completely apart from any ethical considerations:
I'd love to get my coworkers interested in Starcraft. But every time I'm on ladder and my opponent goes off an a racist/homophobic/misogynistic tirade, of is just generically an asshole, I am reminded of why I haven't yet.
I'd be embarrassed if they tried Starcraft on my suggestion and were like, "So THIS is the awesome community you were talking about?"
We're getting close. I'll probably mention they should check out an MLG the next time they have a free one. But the stigma and tone of 'just words' has a real impact.
|
After several threads and hundreds of pages of posts - i still really don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of 1 person calling kids a nigger over the internet in what is clearly a 'rage' moment in sc2.
There seem to be more people taking offense to it under the premise that they should because some other people might find it offensive than because it specifically offends them.
I've played many games where the person on the losing end has rage quit, called me a faggot, a nigger, a dickhead, an <insert profanity here>, etc - At the end of the day its only offensive if I choose to perceive it to be so, if however I choose to accept it's nothing more than the venting of frustration of a similarly competitive player (which I do) then theres no offense to be taken and everyone gets on with their lives and lives happily ever after :D.
IMO, this has received far too much of the communities attention, we should be celebrating the guys moving esports forward, developing the game of starcraft through strategy and contributing to the community far more than we're wallowing in isolated incidents such as these.
|
I think this shows how incredibly thin-skinned our culture has become. The only people who should have ANY input in the matter is the people in the African American starcraft community.
Makes you wonder if it would have caused a stir if he had used the word cracker, spik, chink, etc. I doubt it would have.
|
On March 10 2012 09:08 JackDT wrote:
One factor completely apart from any ethical considerations:
I'd love to get my coworkers interested in Starcraft. But every time I'm on ladder and my opponent goes off an a racist/homophobic/misogynistic tirade, of is just generically an asshole, I am reminded of why I haven't yet.
I'd be embarrassed if they tried Starcraft on my suggestion and were like, "So THIS is the awesome community you were talking about?"
We're getting close. I'll probably mention they should check out an MLG the next time they have a free one. But the stigma and tone of 'just words' has a real impact.
This is probably the biggest deal to me, as well.
|
A fair decision that I understand, if not support. But, while the direct effects are well-deserved I believe, I wonder about the indirect reprecussions.
Will he ever be able to pursue more positions and careers in Starcraft? Join a new team?
|
On March 10 2012 08:55 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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?
Girlfriends... can... be...
The slur doesn't need to only be...
Never mind.
|
On March 10 2012 08:44 figq wrote:Alright, I apologize for having to post a third time about the same topic, apparently my thoughts about it come to me very slowly. My previous two responses were about EG's policy, because their official decision can be associated with them as an organization: + Show Spoiler [previous posts] +On March 09 2012 13:20 figq wrote:
Well, EG is free to hire and fire whoever they want, and the esports audience is free to follow Orb's excellent casting to whatever other leagues that are lucky enough to get him as a caster.
As I said in the other thread, I consider all this in the end more of an attack that hurts EG (for losing Orb as a caster), than an attack that hurts Orb, who will continue to be such a great caster anyway, and probably find an even better position. On March 09 2012 23:27 figq wrote:
As I said before, EG, of course, is free to hire and fire people as they wish, but after some more contemplation, I can't hide that I'm personally disappointed with EG (yet again). In a case that revolves around what usually would be called "progressive thinking" (though I dislike the term, as I find it absurd and relative), issuing any kind of irreversible punishment is disturbing. The whole premise of overcoming any kind of bigotry and segregation is the belief in the human ability to adapt, change, evolve and not be set in stone by the past. In view of this, I find it disheartening to see doors being closed forever, for anyone, even for a murderer, let alone for a verbal abuser. That's not a sign of purity of principles, but rather a sign of fear and weakness. It took me some time to realize what was it that I found so subtly disturbing in EG's official position, and then I realized it was this. However, this post is more about Alex Garfield's personal reasoning, which he outlines so eloquently in the OP, and which of course cannot be fully attributed to EG as a whole. Three things bothered me about the presentation of the case by Alex. First of all, he didn't manage to convince me. He had a very interesting preface designed around pointing out how much he can't stand a word. Then he proceeded to announce that his employee is therefore fired, never to return. Sure, a CEO's decision-making process is solely under his own power, and dictatorship, if you will. But then again why is this decision-making even presented to the public. It didn't seem substantiated enough for me. Basically, it's at the same level as "I hate black people, so I fired that black guy". I'm trying to be supportive of Alex about his personal phobia of the word "nigger", but I wouldn't expect a CEO to be so open about applying professional decisions about people's career, based on his own personal reaction towards something as simple as a word. 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. I can write a system of equations using for variables "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the equations work just the same. Has mathematics not witnessed the centuries of oppression? It has, it existed all along, but it doesn't care about formal sequences of characters, only about the value you put behind them. I can write a computer program and replace all identifiers in it with "nigger", "nigger1", "nigger2"...; the program works just the same. It's also based inherently on the formal languages that have basis in mathematics and more specifically logic. The understanding that there's a great separation between an identifier and the value that it carries is fundamental for the existence of modern computers - and thus computer games. So, especially in the gaming community, people are much more likely to comprehend that difference between symbols, avatars, nicknames, and the actual value behind them. I'm surprised, and a little scared, that a CEO within the gaming industry would have so much hard time given by a word. And that it would be so difficult to separate all its historical connotations with its meaning in a completely different context. Finally, the third thing that bothers me is that apparently the intention is of so very little value. So Alex admits that he doesn't really think Orb to be a racist. Good, I'm glad about that. Apparently that's not enough though, because just calling someone "racist" nowadays is of almost no meaning, as Alex again so very well has described. Then it becomes unclear exactly what is the accusation towards Orb. Apparently his behavior did contain a trait of what could be seen in our modern day as racially offensive language and that's enough for him to be fired, never to return. What about his intentions? If we all agree that in fact he never had any racially offensive intentions to mind and separating people by their color hasn't been a part of his real life reasoning, then again what is his real fault? Is his fault entirely formal, is there any substance to it? It bothers me that a formal fault would be more important than a true character evaluation. For all we know, someone could be an active racist - to the point of actually discriminating people of other races when having the opportunity to get away with it, but still maintain a completely clean sheet in the formal department. Isn't it really more important to analyze people's real intentions and goals rather than their formal means? So to summarize my three posts and their points: - EG is free to conduct their business as they wish, of course - EG loses more than Orb, the attack here could have been against EG - "Progressive" reasoning should not lead to irreversible punishment, even for a murderer - The transition to the decision itself was not convincing enough, and too personal - A CEO in the gaming industry should not be so intimidated by identifiers, by themselves - Value should be more important than a formal expression, especially in the gaming community That said, despite a lot of criticism in my posts, I enjoy Alex's presentations a lot, they are always so educating, well written and a pleasure to read, even when I disagree with many points. So, I thank you. Alex, for taking time to write to us, and I would greatly appreciate any future threads of yours too, hopefully on less troubling matters for EG.
It's not just "formal" when you have a team and corporate sponsors involved. Even if Alex doesn't believe Orb is racist, at least a portion of the general public now believes he is because of his usage of the word nigger. So it's bad for their image, period. That is the substance.
|
I completely agree with EG's stance, orb is representing the community, there should zero tolerance regarding this shit.
|
On March 10 2012 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:55 Zaros wrote:On March 10 2012 08:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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? Girlfriends... can... be... The slur doesn't need to only be... Never mind.
i said its sexist and homophobic what else is left to cover?
|
Althought I don't agree with how he acted, I wish him the best of luck in the future.
|
On March 10 2012 09:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 09:08 JackDT wrote:
One factor completely apart from any ethical considerations:
I'd love to get my coworkers interested in Starcraft. But every time I'm on ladder and my opponent goes off an a racist/homophobic/misogynistic tirade, of is just generically an asshole, I am reminded of why I haven't yet.
I'd be embarrassed if they tried Starcraft on my suggestion and were like, "So THIS is the awesome community you were talking about?"
We're getting close. I'll probably mention they should check out an MLG the next time they have a free one. But the stigma and tone of 'just words' has a real impact. This is probably the biggest deal to me, as well.
I still can't get my wife to come to terms with Day 9's funny faces. I don't know how the hell I'd explain Orb's behaviour to her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
