|
On November 22 2014 15:22 SidianTheBard wrote:
People just get offended way too easily now a day.
I wonder if I said "I'm about to go smoke a fag at dreamhack" if they would DQ me. Because we all know fag = cigarette, right? Or is a queer? Who knows!
People just make strawman arguments way too easily now a day.
I wonder if I said "I'm about to make a false analogy relating raping a woman to smoking a cigarette" if they would DQ me. Because we all know that raping = smoking, right? Or can you smoke a gay guy? Who knows!
I am officially done with this thread. Glad the tournament ruled the way they did, glad Kas realized he was in the wrong, and I'm glad Kas and Maddelisk patched things up.
|
On November 22 2014 15:28 Komentaja wrote:
I wish someone would actually translate Maddelisk's response instead of using google. It's unintelligible in key points.
Kas' post sounded bad to me at first, because I didn't know there was a tournament coming up (even with his hashtag making it logical that there was). I don't follow the SC2 scene much anymore, but I did for a few years. That would make me more likely than most to be accepting of his statement. Yet, I wasn't at all. That makes it obvious that the tournament organizers would not want to have the tweet associated with their tournament.
Fragbite Masters (of slaves?) isn't the most appealing name to be connected with a company, however. And this is a "violent", bloody game. Why draw the harsh line at the point of an okay joke (given the right context)? Humor always offends people, and no publicity is bad publicity. I can see why Fragbite Masters would be annoyed, and even why they would disqualify Kas. What I don't understand is how they would be dumb enough to do so. I don't get why people make news stories of presidential candidates doing idiotic things in their childhood, or even of doing anything more than thirty years ago. Who are you trying to impress by blowing up trivial things? It's not working...
Maddelisk and several femals in and outside the scene got hurt by that sentence. Thats trivial?
|
On November 22 2014 15:29 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:25 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:23 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:14 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:13 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. Im sorry, your argument is that more people die then woman get raped so its ok to tell woman you will rape them? No. I'm saying that telling people you will kill them is more serious then telling people you will rape them. So if people don't get banned for telling people you will kill them, they shouldn't be banned for saying the same thing about rape. It's a matter of simple logical consistency, If you told someone who had to live daily with the fear of being killed that you would kill them, and if the person saying he would kill you belonged to the group who had a history of killing people like you I would have reacted just as strongly. Also you do realize nobody have commited a crime? The argument is simply, do you think its ok to tell woman ypu will rape them? If i went over to your girlfriend and told her i would rape her you would tell her its no big deal because being killed is worse then being raped? No it wouldn't be fine. But it would be much worse if you went up to her and told her you were going to kill her. Still don't get the point? Yes i do, you are agreeing that you should not tell woman you will rape them. Case closed. Now if you want to campaign for banning people for saying they will kill a oponent who is fearing for his life go ahead. I dont think you will meet much tesistance.
Case is not closed yet. Players are banned for talking about rape, but not banned for talking about killing an opponent.
Since Kill > rape, either unban those who joke about rape or ban those who joke about killing, to maintain consistency.
|
On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly.
The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway each year. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled".
|
On November 22 2014 15:30 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:28 Komentaja wrote:
I wish someone would actually translate Maddelisk's response instead of using google. It's unintelligible in key points.
Kas' post sounded bad to me at first, because I didn't know there was a tournament coming up (even with his hashtag making it logical that there was). I don't follow the SC2 scene much anymore, but I did for a few years. That would make me more likely than most to be accepting of his statement. Yet, I wasn't at all. That makes it obvious that the tournament organizers would not want to have the tweet associated with their tournament.
Fragbite Masters (of slaves?) isn't the most appealing name to be connected with a company, however. And this is a "violent", bloody game. Why draw the harsh line at the point of an okay joke (given the right context)? Humor always offends people, and no publicity is bad publicity. I can see why Fragbite Masters would be annoyed, and even why they would disqualify Kas. What I don't understand is how they would be dumb enough to do so. I don't get why people make news stories of presidential candidates doing idiotic things in their childhood, or even of doing anything more than thirty years ago. Who are you trying to impress by blowing up trivial things? It's not working... Maddelisk and several femals in and outside the scene got hurt by that sentence. Thats trivial?
There is no source in this thread saying that is the case.
Edit: and even if it was the case that they got "hurt", then [b]yes, I believe it's trivial. It sounds like a manufactured wound in that case.
|
On November 22 2014 15:22 SidianTheBard wrote:
People just get offended way too easily now a day.
I wonder if I said "I'm about to go smoke a fag at dreamhack" if they would DQ me. Because we all know fag = cigarette, right? Or is a queer? Who knows!
You'd probably be DQ'd, yeah ;D
Regardless of whether or not it's okay that nowadays people get offended over basically anything, I think that it was just dumb as fuck from Kas to say something that will 100% be held against him in some way. It's like Social Media 101 at this point. Don't post non-politically correct shit on your Twitter if you're not some kind of edgy revolutionary-type avant-garde dude who just wants to piss off everybody.
Well, the problem was probably that Kas wasn't really aware of what he was saying, because of him not being a good English speaker.
|
On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled"
All the numbers are all over the place. Only 100 people are convicted for rape in Norway every year, and somehow that extrapolates to 8.000-16.000 rapes.
|
On November 22 2014 15:28 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:26 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 15:19 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:17 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. Yeah, who cares about the third world or pseudo first world countries right? If someone is offended there nobody cares o_O #sarcasm Yeah, we also can't make jokes about water or medicine, because people in third world countries will get offended because they die from the lack of that all the time. If you extend this line of thinking, you can't actually joke about anything because somebody somewhere is bound to get offended. You are using a snowball fallacy here, lets continue. We cannot discuss anything since somebody might disagree and might be offended. We should stop talking, since anything we say can directly or indirectly reflect some opinion, that someone is bound to disagree with. Thats not how it works. Its simple, discuss if its ok or not for Kas to tweet that, do not use a fictional example and claim its the same thing. But where do you draw the cutoff point? What number of people getting offended? Come up with a system to measure the magnitude of offensiveness? Wouldn't any cutoff point be arbitrary? It's all a silly business really.
Where to draw a cutoff point? I think they did it right. Its not about numbers, it was directed towards an individual, so that is enough. If it was a clearly hamless tweet, then ofc he should not be banned, but that is not the case.
Its not precise, but its probably in accordance with the law, usually a good standard.
*edited
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
111 victims of intentional homicide in 2011
|
Canada11355 Posts
On November 22 2014 15:30 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:28 Komentaja wrote:
I wish someone would actually translate Maddelisk's response instead of using google. It's unintelligible in key points.
Kas' post sounded bad to me at first, because I didn't know there was a tournament coming up (even with his hashtag making it logical that there was). I don't follow the SC2 scene much anymore, but I did for a few years. That would make me more likely than most to be accepting of his statement. Yet, I wasn't at all. That makes it obvious that the tournament organizers would not want to have the tweet associated with their tournament.
Fragbite Masters (of slaves?) isn't the most appealing name to be connected with a company, however. And this is a "violent", bloody game. Why draw the harsh line at the point of an okay joke (given the right context)? Humor always offends people, and no publicity is bad publicity. I can see why Fragbite Masters would be annoyed, and even why they would disqualify Kas. What I don't understand is how they would be dumb enough to do so. I don't get why people make news stories of presidential candidates doing idiotic things in their childhood, or even of doing anything more than thirty years ago. Who are you trying to impress by blowing up trivial things? It's not working... Maddelisk and several femals in and outside the scene got hurt by that sentence. Thats trivial?
How does being offended = being hurt?
|
On November 22 2014 15:35 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate111 victims of intentional homicide in 2011
Even that is a crazy outlier. 77 of those were killed by the same person.
|
On November 22 2014 15:34 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:28 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:26 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 15:19 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:17 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. Yeah, who cares about the third world or pseudo first world countries right? If someone is offended there nobody cares o_O #sarcasm Yeah, we also can't make jokes about water or medicine, because people in third world countries will get offended because they die from the lack of that all the time. If you extend this line of thinking, you can't actually joke about anything because somebody somewhere is bound to get offended. You are using a snowball fallacy here, lets continue. We cannot discuss anything since somebody might disagree and might be offended. We should stop talking, since anything we say can directly or indirectly reflect some opinion, that someone is bound to disagree with. Thats not how it works. Its simple, discuss if its ok or not for Kas to tweet that, do not use a fictional example and claim its the same thing. But where do you draw the cutoff point? What number of people getting offended? Come up with a system to measure the magnitude of offensiveness? Wouldn't any cutoff point be arbitrary? It's all a silly business really. Where to draw a cutoff point? I think they did it right. Its not about numbers, it was directed towards an individual, so that is enough. If it was a clearly hamless tweet, then ofc he should not be banned, but that is not the case. Its not precise, but its probably in accordance with the law, a good standard by any means.
The cutoff point argument was referring to the issue of what jokes are acceptable in response to your accusation of a snowball fallacy, not the Kas incident.
|
On November 22 2014 15:31 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:29 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:25 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:23 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:14 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:13 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:
[quote]your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin
"kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason
how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war
that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. Im sorry, your argument is that more people die then woman get raped so its ok to tell woman you will rape them? No. I'm saying that telling people you will kill them is more serious then telling people you will rape them. So if people don't get banned for telling people you will kill them, they shouldn't be banned for saying the same thing about rape. It's a matter of simple logical consistency, If you told someone who had to live daily with the fear of being killed that you would kill them, and if the person saying he would kill you belonged to the group who had a history of killing people like you I would have reacted just as strongly. Also you do realize nobody have commited a crime? The argument is simply, do you think its ok to tell woman ypu will rape them? If i went over to your girlfriend and told her i would rape her you would tell her its no big deal because being killed is worse then being raped? No it wouldn't be fine. But it would be much worse if you went up to her and told her you were going to kill her. Still don't get the point? Yes i do, you are agreeing that you should not tell woman you will rape them. Case closed. Now if you want to campaign for banning people for saying they will kill a oponent who is fearing for his life go ahead. I dont think you will meet much tesistance. Case is not closed yet. Players are banned for talking about rape, but not banned for talking about killing an opponent. Since Kill > rape, either unban those who joke about rape or ban those who joke about killing, to maintain consistency.
One person got disqualified from one tournament for telling a girl he was gonna rep her.
You are still drawing a false equivilant. Sexual harrassment is something most woman experience in one form or anorher. Most people dont live in fear of being killed. If one person did and someone said they was going to kill him i would suport him getting disqualified from a tournamen as well. Now you tell me where this happened?
Its also peculiar that you defend something you admit to being wrong because you think something worse is being accepted. Wouldent it be better to fight to get this thing that is worse banned as well? Insted of saying something you think is wrong should be allowed? Surely if we find a low point we shouldent try to sink every other standar to it but try to raise the low point insted?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On November 22 2014 15:36 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:35 lichter wrote:On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate111 victims of intentional homicide in 2011 Even that is a crazy outlier. 77 of those were killed by the same person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Homicide rate per 100,000 is ~6.9
Rape rate per 100,000 is ~14.75
|
On November 22 2014 15:36 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:35 lichter wrote:On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate111 victims of intentional homicide in 2011 Even that is a crazy outlier. 77 of those were killed by the same person.
Incredible. 77? That's on the scale of that Navy Seal sniper who wrote a book. I'm surprised that there are so few killings, though, in general. Even if the number of rapes found in that widely quoted CDC study is exaggerated, there are still way more rapes than killings. I guess the wide media coverage of killings has overinflated my internal guess of their number.
|
On November 22 2014 15:41 Komentaja wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:36 Darkwhite wrote:On November 22 2014 15:35 lichter wrote:On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate111 victims of intentional homicide in 2011 Even that is a crazy outlier. 77 of those were killed by the same person. Incredible. 77? That's on the scale of that Navy Seal sniper who wrote a book. I'm surprised that there are so few killings, though, in general. Even if the number of rapes found in that widely quoted CDC study is exaggerated, there are still way more rapes than killings. I guess the wide media coverage of killings has overinflated my internal guess of their number.
It's a fairly infamous incident. If the name Breivik doesn't ring any bells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
|
On November 22 2014 15:39 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:31 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:29 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:25 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:23 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:14 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:13 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:
[quote]
Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know.
Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped.
Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. Im sorry, your argument is that more people die then woman get raped so its ok to tell woman you will rape them? No. I'm saying that telling people you will kill them is more serious then telling people you will rape them. So if people don't get banned for telling people you will kill them, they shouldn't be banned for saying the same thing about rape. It's a matter of simple logical consistency, If you told someone who had to live daily with the fear of being killed that you would kill them, and if the person saying he would kill you belonged to the group who had a history of killing people like you I would have reacted just as strongly. Also you do realize nobody have commited a crime? The argument is simply, do you think its ok to tell woman ypu will rape them? If i went over to your girlfriend and told her i would rape her you would tell her its no big deal because being killed is worse then being raped? No it wouldn't be fine. But it would be much worse if you went up to her and told her you were going to kill her. Still don't get the point? Yes i do, you are agreeing that you should not tell woman you will rape them. Case closed. Now if you want to campaign for banning people for saying they will kill a oponent who is fearing for his life go ahead. I dont think you will meet much tesistance. Case is not closed yet. Players are banned for talking about rape, but not banned for talking about killing an opponent. Since Kill > rape, either unban those who joke about rape or ban those who joke about killing, to maintain consistency. One person got disqualified from one tournament for telling a girl he was gonna rep her. You are still drawing a false equivilant. Sexual harrassment is something most woman experience in one form or anorher. Most people dont live in fear of being killed. If one person did and someone said they was going to kill him i would suport him getting disqualified from a tournamen as well. Now you tell me where this happened? Its also peculiar that you defend something you admit to being wrong because you think something worse is being accepted. Wouldent it be better to fight to get this thing that is worse banned as well? Insted of saying something you think is wrong should be allowed? Surely if we find a low point we shouldent try to sink every other standar to it but try to raise the low point insted?
Yeap, that's why I said either unban those who joke about rape or ban those who joke about killing, to maintain consistency. But to me, regardless of whether a high or low standard is chosen, logical consistency is more important.
Edit: Regarding the point about fear, I already gave an example. More people live in fear of getting hit (since it's more common) than getting rape. So would this mean that threatening to hit someone is worse than threatening to rape someone? Again it goes back to the point about consistency. It's best to either ban all jokes about crimes, or allow all, instead of doing things arbitrarily based on feelings.
|
On November 22 2014 15:31 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:29 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:25 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:23 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:14 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:13 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:
[quote]your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin
"kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason
how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war
that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. Im sorry, your argument is that more people die then woman get raped so its ok to tell woman you will rape them? No. I'm saying that telling people you will kill them is more serious then telling people you will rape them. So if people don't get banned for telling people you will kill them, they shouldn't be banned for saying the same thing about rape. It's a matter of simple logical consistency, If you told someone who had to live daily with the fear of being killed that you would kill them, and if the person saying he would kill you belonged to the group who had a history of killing people like you I would have reacted just as strongly. Also you do realize nobody have commited a crime? The argument is simply, do you think its ok to tell woman ypu will rape them? If i went over to your girlfriend and told her i would rape her you would tell her its no big deal because being killed is worse then being raped? No it wouldn't be fine. But it would be much worse if you went up to her and told her you were going to kill her. Still don't get the point? Yes i do, you are agreeing that you should not tell woman you will rape them. Case closed. Now if you want to campaign for banning people for saying they will kill a oponent who is fearing for his life go ahead. I dont think you will meet much tesistance. Case is not closed yet. Players are banned for talking about rape, but not banned for talking about killing an opponent. Since Kill > rape, either unban those who joke about rape or ban those who joke about killing, to maintain consistency.
people could try to explain things to you, but what's the point? you don't care. you don't want people to not say violent things to one another, you just want to be able to tell a woman that you're going to rape her and then high five your idiot friends about it and whine like a baby about freedom if anyone calls you a douchebag for having done so. grow up.
|
On November 22 2014 15:38 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:34 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 15:28 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:26 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 15:19 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:17 Superbanana wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. Yeah, who cares about the third world or pseudo first world countries right? If someone is offended there nobody cares o_O #sarcasm Yeah, we also can't make jokes about water or medicine, because people in third world countries will get offended because they die from the lack of that all the time. If you extend this line of thinking, you can't actually joke about anything because somebody somewhere is bound to get offended. You are using a snowball fallacy here, lets continue. We cannot discuss anything since somebody might disagree and might be offended. We should stop talking, since anything we say can directly or indirectly reflect some opinion, that someone is bound to disagree with. Thats not how it works. Its simple, discuss if its ok or not for Kas to tweet that, do not use a fictional example and claim its the same thing. But where do you draw the cutoff point? What number of people getting offended? Come up with a system to measure the magnitude of offensiveness? Wouldn't any cutoff point be arbitrary? It's all a silly business really. Where to draw a cutoff point? I think they did it right. Its not about numbers, it was directed towards an individual, so that is enough. If it was a clearly hamless tweet, then ofc he should not be banned, but that is not the case. Its not precise, but its probably in accordance with the law, a good standard by any means. The cutoff point argument was referring to the issue of what jokes are acceptable in response to your accusation of a snowball fallacy, not the Kas incident.
There is no clear cutoff point, indeed. Its up to each organization to judge that, and the society can accept it or not.
But its a fallacy because that "rape jokes not being ok" do not imply that water and medicine jokes are not ok. "Extending this line of thinking" is the fallacy.
|
On November 22 2014 15:33 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 15:31 10bulgares wrote:On November 22 2014 15:10 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 15:02 ddayzy wrote:On November 22 2014 14:54 Pangpootata wrote:On November 22 2014 14:49 brickrd wrote:On November 22 2014 14:43 Pangpootata wrote:
Imagine if Kas had said "Going to kill an opponent soon". Would he have gotten banned for that?
No.
But murder is a more serious crime than rape, so why would he get banned for saying "Going to rape some girl soon"?
Isn't it silly how peoples' repressed sexual desires have made rape an emotionally charged issue, while more serious crimes such as murder can be talked about trivially?
This whole issue disgusts me. your logic is childish at best and sinister at worst, there are so many reasons it's different that i don't know where to begin "kill" or "to die", linguistically speaking, doesn't always carry a connotation of ending a human life. it's much more common and accepted for "death" to be used metaphorically in any number of ways. your car's engine died. your passion for starcraft died. a bill died in the senate. to "kill" your opponent can simply mean to end their chances of winning the tournament, to stop their momentum. there is an almost infinite precedent for using "kill" this way in the english language. using "rape" to mean "defeat in a competition" is not something that's typically seen or accepted outside of a culture of sexually immature male gamers behind the veil of the internet, and for good reason how many pro SC2 gamers do you think live in real fear of being murdered on an everyday basis? even in violent areas your odds of being murdered are fairly low. do you know what the odds of a woman being raped or sexually abused in her life are? not just by a stranger but by a family member or friend? do you actually understand how common and pervasive the problem of sexual abuse against women is? it's a matter of reality. it's not reality to presume that a gamer will have anxiety or fear triggered by a comment about being "killed" at their game, especially since the game's context in itself involves fictional soldiers fighting and killing each other in a war that you think the reason for not wanting women to feel harassed and live in fear is "repressed sexual desires" is possibly the most offensive thing i've seen in this thread Outside of the context of online games, rape has always meant to seize or capture by force. If you go look up the etymology of rape, the sexual meaning is only a very recent development, which I'm sure anyone who reads classics and eschews the vernacular would know. Besides, it is more common for people to be killed (by any factor) than raped. Anyway, most women don't live in fear of being raped unless it's some third world country or some shitty pseudo-first world country. 6000-8000 woman gets raped each year in Norway, that only counts vaginal prnetrating and is consideted a very conservative estimate. >40000 people in Norway get killed per year (by any factor). Dying is more common than getting raped Anyway, the basic argument you are putting forth is that although killing is more serious than rape, more people live in fear of getting rape, i.e. it's the fear of it actually happening rather than the severity of the crime. Extending this logic wouldn't it mean threatening to punch someone is worse than threatening to rape someone because more people live in fear of getting hit than getting raped? I do agree that people should try not to rape each other, but this whole business about rape receiving special attention is silly. The 40000 number you cite is all people dieing in Norway. Probably a very little proportion of them actually "gets killled" All the numbers are all over the place. Only 100 people are convicted for rape in Norway every year, and somehow that extrapolates to 8.000-16.000 rapes.
I geniounly cannot believe people as nasty or as blind as you exist. 3.800 rapes wete reported in norway in 2007, numbers from rape centers and survays shows the number to be between 8000 and 16000. Thats a conservative estimate. If you actually talk to woman or simply go out on the weekend you would not doubt this numbers at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
