|
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 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history.
To you, yes. Using anything as an insult can be taken in completely different ways. I've been called a nigger many, many times. Never have I thought that the person that said it to me was thinking that being black was bad, in fact, I've had a few black people call me a "fucking nigger" over mic while playing a certain game. They're venting, and that's all there is to it. There is no deeper meaning to a generic insult, except that it is meant to be insulting, without attacking anything specific.
Implications are incredibly subjective, and thus I would not like to go into this.
|
On March 14 2012 07:30 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
I feel that if orb had called the guy a faggot, or some other "offensive" word, then he probably wouldn't be in so much trouble, if any at all.
You seem to be oblivious to how the world operates. It is not possible to say the racial slur in the context that orb used it in and it not be considered a racist comment against African-Americans. Also, WTF is a generic insult?
When someone says "faggot", they don't mean "you are a homosexual."
In the same way, when someone says "nigger", they don't mean "you are a black person"
If I called you homosexual or black, you shouldn't be offended because those two words are not, by denotation, derogatory terms. It's the context, culture, denotation, etc. etc. that makes those words an insult.
In this age, you would not get offended by "faggot" and "nigger" because you think it's bad to be homosexual or black, it's because those words have become "generic insults."
Does that make sense? But yeah, agreeing with a lot of people here that this whole thing is just silly. And it's unfortunate for orb, but at least it's a learning experience.
EDIT: Actually, I should point out that "nigger" has not become a "generic insult" for me. It is probably because I don't really hear it being used, rarely if at all. "Faggot", on the other hand, I can understand being used as an insult when someone's just angry. It's very similar to "retard" or "lame." No one thinks "wtf he just said that I'm mentally retarded" or "dude, you just called me a cripple?" Insults that have lost their original context become generic insults, and in this case, "nigger" was thrown around because it's lost its context (black people as the inferior race in America).
|
On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related.
We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago.
By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do.
Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory.
FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view.
|
On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:
FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view.
I never said I had black friends who aren't offended. I'm honestly not sure about their views on the word, as it hasn't been used around them, while I was around them, that is.
Also, I agree with your point that thing do not stop being offensive, I just think that they become "dulled", I suppose. It's not that they completely lose their meaning, but they do lose their "value". It's kind of hard to explain. Like how gore loses its shock value. It's still disgusting, but it doesn't hold the same effect.
It does also depend on context and environment. Mine is certainly different and as such I feel differently about it.
Anyway, I'm done arguing this, as I've said just about all I can.
|
On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view.
The N-word's original definition, as far as the English language is concerned, is "black person". That makes it no more derogatory than "negro" or "African American". Implications of inferiority are connotations added through usage relating to slavery. These kinds of words are only as offensive as you let them be. Meaning is relative. This applies to "gay" as well. Who are you to say that I am comparing it to being homosexual as opposed to being happy?
|
Whoever went to pitchforks, to remove orb (just to remove him and ignore everything else other people has done) has to be pretty much a no-lifer.
|
really makes me sad the way the community is that they had to ruin somebodies life and future career over a silly word.
Wish Orb the best of whatever he does in the future and hope he gets past this.
|
On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view.
The Word is changing, has changed. It still has some old meaning true. I would even bet that the word is still used in a racist derogatory way, but its not the only way its used. There is still a lot of racial slurs out there that no one even knows or cares to know , or do know and still use it. Even if you dont believe the word is changing it has to be used in a way that changes it , before it starts to change. So context is a very big part of understanding how the word is meaning to be presented. Sure there is going to be people who find different words offensive, but if every one trys to tipy toe trying not to offenend any one then we might as well be silent cause you might offenend someone.
Even possibly there is some deaf people being offenended that they cant hear the commentary of the players or blind people who are and that no one gives a play by play. So at what point will people get over themselves and listen to the message a person is trying to present and if they dont like it , walk away ? There is tons of bad things happening in this world saying a word in a non racist way is not doing harm to anyone who is not allowing themselves to be harmed. If people can honestly say that this is such a bad thing need to get out in the world and start fixing the real problems instead of sitting on the internet whining some one said a bad word.
There is real racism and prejudice in the world that people can fight. Go out and help them. There is still children working in sweat shops. There is still people who are treated bad because they are different ethnics. There is still woman who get unfairly treated in the work place. There is still bullying in schools and in the adult worlds. What is not causing problems in this world is a person saying a word on the interent because he was upset at a loss on a game.
|
Very grateful for your post and actions taken Alex, as well as the explanation you gave during the CSL symposium at princeton. Your standards and morals will hopefully trickle down and continue to uphold the community of StarCraft players, fans, and commentators as well. I have a little more respect for EG now than ever.
If anyone hasn't seen that symposium yet, it's very informative and a nice glimpse into the minds of the some of the leaders of eSports atm. http://www.twitch.tv/cstarleague in the VODs section.
|
On March 14 2012 08:25 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view. The N-word's original definition, as far as the English language is concerned, is "black person". That makes it no more derogatory than "negro" or "African American". Implications of inferiority are connotations added through usage relating to slavery. These kinds of words are only as offensive as you let them be. Meaning is relative. This applies to "gay" as well. Who are you to say that I am comparing it to being homosexual as opposed to being happy?
Meaning is relative? Well, that just depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.
Seriously though, it's not that relative. To a degree language is, but if it were relative to the point where hate words are no longer offensive, then people would not even use those words as insults as they would no longer be insulting. If it were that relative, you and I would not be able to have a conversation, because I could choose to believe that the word "happy" means "dandelions" or start using "the" as an indefinite article and change "a" to the definite article. But that would be unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to think that, just because you don't find something offensive, means it cannot be.
Would you be comfortable going up to a random black person and calling him/her that word? How about a random white one? Would those people be unreasonable in assuming you are racist?
As far as "gay" and "happy" are concerned, happy is archaic. People just say happy now. I am not arguing that words cannot change. Google it. Happy does not come up on the first page. Obviously, Google is not the authority on the English language, but it certainly helps to demonstrate which meaning is most likely. After all, language is relative, so it is more important what the word means to me than it means to you.
@ Badcnr
Obviously physically acting out on bigotry is not the only way that bigots express themselves. Gay teens killing themselves has as much to do with the culture of "gay" things being implicitly bad as clearly bigoted acts. Obviously physical attacks are bad, but physical attacks do not commonly lead to suicide.
It would be awesome if these words were no longer offensive, but in order for that to happen they need to no longer be synonymous with something insulting. Being a part of the majority who used these words as insults does not subvert the meaning; conversely, it implicitly supports it. Are there worse things? Yeah. But that does not mean we should ignore things that cross the line.
Edit: clarification.
|
If it were that relative, you and I would not be able to have a conversation, because I could choose to believe that the word "happy" means "dandelions" or start using "the" as an indefinite article and change "a" to the definite article. But that would be unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to think that, just because you don't find something offensive, means it cannot be.
You could choose to believe "happy" means "dandelions", and that would be no more absurd than believing "gay" means "homosexual". The only difference is that enough people have bought into the "gay = homosexual" that it's been granted legitimacy by the majority.
Would you be comfortable going up to a random black person and calling him/her that word? How about a random white one? Would those people be unreasonable in assuming you are racist?
I would not be comfortable going up to a random person and calling him/her anything. And it would not be unreasonable for them to assume I'm racist if I use that word, but they would not have just cause for assuming so.
As far as "gay" and "happy" are concerned, happy is archaic. People just say happy now. I am not arguing that words cannot change. Google it. Happy does not come up on the first page. Obviously, Google is not the authority on the English language, but it certainly helps to demonstrate which meaning is most likely. After all, language is relative, so it is more important what the word means to me than it means to you.
I did google it. "Happy" came up in the second hit. The definition "happy" was used widely right up to the 1960s. It's only archaic now because it was taken by the homosexual community and now no one else wants to use it.
After all, language is relative, so it is more important what the word means to me than it means to you.
At the end of the day, the big issue here is the will of the majority vs individual liberty. It doesn't matter what the word means to you; it doesn't matter what the word means to me. What matters is to a significant majority, at least in the US, this word is bad. Just like how "shit" is bad but "crap" is not. There is no justifiable logic to it, it's just self-perpetuating nonsense.
|
On March 14 2012 09:30 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view. The N-word's original definition, as far as the English language is concerned, is "black person". That makes it no more derogatory than "negro" or "African American". Implications of inferiority are connotations added through usage relating to slavery. These kinds of words are only as offensive as you let them be. Meaning is relative. This applies to "gay" as well. Who are you to say that I am comparing it to being homosexual as opposed to being happy? Meaning is relative? Well, that just depends on what the definition of the word "is" is. Seriously though, it's not that relative. To a degree language is, but if it were relative to the point where hate words are no longer offensive, then people would not even use those words as insults as they would no longer be insulting. If it were that relative, you and I would not be able to have a conversation, because I could choose to believe that the word "happy" means "dandelions" or start using "the" as an indefinite article and change "a" to the definite article. But that would be unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to think that, just because you don't find something offensive, means it cannot be. Would you be comfortable going up to a random black person and calling him/her that word? How about a random white one? Would those people be unreasonable in assuming you are racist? As far as "gay" and "happy" are concerned, happy is archaic. People just say happy now. I am not arguing that words cannot change. Google it. Happy does not come up on the first page. Obviously, Google is not the authority on the English language, but it certainly helps to demonstrate which meaning is most likely. After all, language is relative, so it is more important what the word means to me than it means to you. @ Badcnr Obviously physically acting out on bigotry is not the only way that bigots express themselves. Gay teens killing themselves has as much to do with the culture of "gay" things being implicitly bad as clearly bigoted acts. Obviously physical attacks are bad, but physical attacks do not commonly lead to suicide. It would be awesome if these words were no longer offensive, but in order for that to happen they need to no longer be synonymous with something insulting. Being a part of the majority who used these words as insults does not subvert the meaning; conversely, it implicitly supports it. Are there worse things? Yeah. But that does not mean we should ignore things that cross the line. Edit: clarification.
ok so how does it that word change ? IT doesnt change by keeping the idea that it hasnt change so dont use it in any other way. It does change make using it in a different context. There are tons of words that are insults that people use everyday that are offensive or insulting to multiple ethnics, cultures , groups. You will have a hard time not offenending some one. If Orb or any one try to openly try to put down another person for their culture , race or anything i would totally agree with you. But Orb clearly wasnt not doing that. People get flustered. People say things in rage because we are human we express ourselves. Saying a word clearly in a context which not meant to be aimed at a race or culture is not racism, or prejudice its expressing a feat of rage. If crossing the line is getting angry then every one is guilty. If you hear about some one is persecuted for gender, race, religion , sexuality, culture stand up for them. But to honestly say that getting a guy saying a word when he is clearly just releasing frustration thats going to do what? How many black people or any race decided after orb said that word , that they had enough they just could not live with them selves because Orb used that word when he was mad??
|
On March 14 2012 07:30 Diamond wrote:
This thread has sooooooooooo run it's course now...............
The problem is that people keep coming in and trying to rationalize using the term 'nigger' with the same arguments that have been contradicted a thousand times.
|
On March 14 2012 12:53 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:30 Diamond wrote:
This thread has sooooooooooo run it's course now............... The problem is that people keep coming in and trying to rationalize using the term 'nigger' with the same arguments that have been contradicted a thousand times.
Ding Ding Ding!
|
On March 14 2012 08:25 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view. The N-word's original definition, as far as the English language is concerned, is "black person". That makes it no more derogatory than "negro" or "African American". Implications of inferiority are connotations added through usage relating to slavery. These kinds of words are only as offensive as you let them be. Meaning is relative. This applies to "gay" as well. Who are you to say that I am comparing it to being homosexual as opposed to being happy?
...Seriously? You're totally grasping at straws here.
A faggot is a bundle of sticks that was used to burn homosexuals for being inferior humans. Saying "Stop being so fucking gay" or "Stop being such a fucking faggot" to a person when you're angry with him has all the necessary context needed to show that you're calling him homosexual- and that you're relating those terms to meaning stupid or inferior to a "good" or "normal" guy, or "person that wouldn't piss you off"- as opposed to someone who's merely overly happy. The same goes with using the term "nigger" in that context.
|
imo, this should have never been a big deal, and anyone who was going against EG for having Orb was foolish. If you want to hate Orb for talking smack, then hate Orb and boycott EG, but sending word to their sponsors saying that they are displeased? Grow up.. You just become a mad nerd who has nothing to give but hurt.
If you're wanting to watch broadcasts, but also wanting to boycott a caster, then submit your complaints civilly to the organization hosting the event. You probably won't like every caster in the world though, so learn to live with life.
Sad for Orb getting called out on being human, good for him for apologizing even though he really shouldn't have to.
If your boss says that smoking is not allowed, your boss has no right to fire you for smoking in your home on your day off. At the same time though, Orb as a sc2 personality should know better than to do something stupid. I've seen him do things and say things that I thought were stupid, and thought he should watch himself, but regardless, this case should not affect his job the way it did.
Sad for EG for having to apologize to angry nerds who they shouldn't have to apologize to but do have to because they count on those angry nerds to support them. Yeah, they have to apologize, but only because the angry nerds are but leeches in our community.
Sad to once again hear that there are so many terrible people within our community..
Sad day overall.. T_T
These are my opinions and I'm sorry if an angry nerd gets angry reading them.
Best of luck to all parties, and long live the business that is eSports.
|
I play online games since 2002 and the first thing i realized was that many ppl who lose get very angry till the next game they win. After they win it's like the loss never happened and the anger was never there. And that was how it was for me. Till I found out about this thread. Now I feel like I come from a different world and have missed all the ppl who would gladly have defended me, when i was winning a game and were called things like "lowlife" "nazi" "motherfucker" and so on. Well the thing is, i felt great in that situation because i was winning the game. I never thought about who that other person might be or what he thought about my personality. It was just normal in a game.
And then in sc2 i watched player streams. It was absolutly normal to see trashtalk, shitchat, spam and flame - but that was always because they were playing the game and their reactions based on that game. I found streams like naruto, idra, orb and so on who would show me the streamer himself very emotionaly and doing all that stuff i mentioned. And hell orb was known for that since beta. It was normal and entertaining to me - watching how he would lose but react with flames while explaining what cheap tactics his enemy was using. Cheap tactics were the reason for some hard flame - yes. It was a normal way to carry out the reaction to me.
And now i find this thread making me wonder about many things... Stay true loses it's meaning I guess. The price for big money eSports I guess. I don't like it.
sry 4 bad lang
|
Thank you Shinta for providing the perfect example.
|
On March 14 2012 13:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Reedjr wrote:On March 14 2012 07:25 Warlock40 wrote:On March 14 2012 07:08 SnuggleZhenya wrote:On March 14 2012 06:44 FecalTank wrote:
As it has been said, this whole incident is just silly. It is incredibly clear that it wasn't being said as a racial slur, but as a generic insult. If you seriously believe that it isn't used as a low-tier insult much more often then it is an actual insult against one's race, then I feel bad for you.
You realize that when you use a racial term as a "generic insult" that the implication is that it is BAD to be that race right? THAT is the entire point of this. Its like half the people on this board have no sense of the last 50 years of american history. Language changes all the time; words gain new connotations and lose old ones. If people use it without that sense of history, that would actually make it justified because they aren't drawing from centuries worth of bigotry, they are just using it in a void as a "generic insult". If you say something sucks, are you demeaning people who practice oral sex? If you say something's gay, are you demeaning people who are happy? If you say something's dumb, are you demeaning people who cannot speak? It's absurd to believe that every connotation of a word is exchangeable, even if at one point they were related. We are not at the point at which this word is no longer offensive. The underlying implication of inferiority is still there; the speaker may not necessarily mean it, but that does not mean it is unreasonable to infer that he/she might. I would argue that people who do not use that word with any sense its history are ignorant; the civil rights movement was historically not that long ago. By the by, saying something is gay is also still offensive (as in comparing a bad situation to being homosexual, therefore implying homosexuality is also bad). Just because words can change meaning does not mean that they always instantaneously and irrevocably do. Do you know the difference between connotation and denotation? I'm not trying to insult you; I'm genuinely curious. The N-word still has a very specific denotation that is derogatory. FecalTank, anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in these kinds of discussions. Even if you have a few black friends who are not offended, that does not mean that all, or even many, share that view. The N-word's original definition, as far as the English language is concerned, is "black person". That makes it no more derogatory than "negro" or "African American". Implications of inferiority are connotations added through usage relating to slavery. These kinds of words are only as offensive as you let them be. Meaning is relative. This applies to "gay" as well. Who are you to say that I am comparing it to being homosexual as opposed to being happy? ...Seriously? You're totally grasping at straws here. A faggot is a bundle of sticks that was used to burn homosexuals for being inferior humans. Saying "Stop being so fucking gay" or "Stop being such a fucking faggot" to a person when you're angry with him has all the necessary context needed to show that you're calling him homosexual- and that you're relating those terms to meaning stupid or inferior to a "good" or "normal" guy, or "person that wouldn't piss you off"- as opposed to someone who's merely overly happy. The same goes with using the term "nigger" in that context.
A faggot is a bundle of sticks. You can use it to burn homosexuals. You can use it to keep yourself warm. You can use it as a rallying symbol for fascism. The meanings of words reflect different things to people who hear them and use them. There's no set meaning. If enough people use a word to mean something else, it will mean something else. That's all.
|
Ha this damn thread is still here ?
Here is an interesting viewpoint to all the anti EG aguments.
In America, the N word originally was only ever used to refer to an enslaved race. Not a sexual preference or a buch of sticks or a mental capacity, but an enslaved race of people. The word simultaneously stereotyped an entire race and told them they were worth less than all other races. It is one of the most shameful words in american history.
The N word has so much negative history in american culture that it brings out bad feelings for many people hearing it or even discussing it's use (whether they are for or against using it freely). Just read through this thread to see what I mean.
The fact that Orb (an american I assume) did not pick up on all of the cultural bias against that word speaks volumes about the way he thinks. Either he really meant the word in a hateful racist way, or he was not very perceptive of what that word means to many americans, and used the word with much ignorance. I do not beleive 'drunken anger' excuses ones actions in this case.
There was no creativity or artful use of the word by him (like modern day comedians and artists), he did not expand it's meaning by using the word in anger. So that makes his use of the word very hard to stomach (ie. he is either a hateful racist or extremely dense/insensitive when it comes to american culture).
The fact that he appears to be lying about his very recent use of the word in a public broadcast (blame it on a mysterious friend?) does not help the picture of this kid that has formed in my head, or the sick feeling that comes into my stomach as I read through this thread. This is not about freedom of speech, this is about respect for our history and culture.
Maybe this will help some people understand why in this situation, EG really made the right move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
