Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Profanity Name From Sister of Parvos


AllenWhat

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That is just silly thinking, and is as closeminded as the racists and bigots you talk about. There is a massive difference between throwing in words that hurt and using those words based on ideology.

On 2021-08-15 at 10:16 AM, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Yea exactly. You're actually more likely to be so because in the heated moment implies a temporary loss of judgment....where the truth comes out.

No it means you aim for what hurts the other party the most.

On 2021-08-15 at 10:57 AM, LillyRaccune said:

A "heated moment" can ruin a person's reputation because it reveals deep-seated feelings. Humans are not judged for their thoughts, but they are judged for their words and actions. Lots of people are racist or have racist tendencies, but they are not openly using "bad words". That is the social-norm. "Closet racists" are still racists, however people with pre-conceived prejudice are often called racists. The best thing we can do is communicate, and change, and try to become better humans.

People that are openly sharing discriminatory ideas, promoting hate, and not willing to learn or change are the enemies in this situation.

Yes, the reputation can be ruined, but it doesnt mean the reputation is correct. If I throw in a hurtful word it is to hurt the other person, nothing else. It may be cruel, but it has nothing to do with an idealogical standpoint at all since it doesnt matter to me what the word is aslong as it is effective in the situation. Now obviously I dont go around and do this regularly. A closet racist for instance would be someone that actually thinks he is of a superior "race" but doesnt actually express it. I dont care who you are when it comes to the things you cannot chose, since in the end we are all just human no matter if we have a wee-wee. a ho-ha or different pigement composition.

I think you're drawing an unnecessary distinction. What is the difference between someone who uses a racial slur because they're racist and someone who uses a racial slur in order to hurt? The hurt suffered by the other person is the same in both cases. And if you're using a racial slur only because you think it'll hurt, that's not really a defensible position. It means you are okay with racist language and a set of behaviour that reinforces the racism already inherent to our society. At that point, I don't think there is a useful distinction between that person and someone who is just a straight-up racist.

We can't judge people for their thoughts because we can't know their thoughts. We judge people by their actions. The two aggressors in the hypothetical, one being racist and one acting racist on an impulse, have identical actions with identical effects. Therefore, I think we should judge them identically.

If I had a coworker who hated me because of my race, who thought I was inferior, but never did or said anything to act on those beliefs, I would rather work with them than with a different coworker who called me racial slurs and invoked stereotypes just because they thought it was funny and wanted to get a rise out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, GrayArchon said:

I think you're drawing an unnecessary distinction. What is the difference between someone who uses a racial slur because they're racist and someone who uses a racial slur in order to hurt? The hurt suffered by the other person is the same in both cases. And if you're using a racial slur only because you think it'll hurt, that's not really a defensible position. It means you are okay with racist language and a set of behaviour that reinforces the racism already inherent to our society. At that point, I don't think there is a useful distinction between that person and someone who is just a straight-up racist.

We can't judge people for their thoughts because we can't know their thoughts. We judge people by their actions. The two aggressors in the hypothetical, one being racist and one acting racist on an impulse, have identical actions with identical effects. Therefore, I think we should judge them identically.

If I had a coworker who hated me because of my race, who thought I was inferior, but never did or said anything to act on those beliefs, I would rather work with them than with a different coworker who called me racial slurs and invoked stereotypes just because they thought it was funny and wanted to get a rise out of me.

1000% AGREE.

Also, to the original post --  What does it MATTER what you think of what ought be and not be blocked?  

1. This isn't the Feedback section, so it ain't gonna have an impact on the devs either way...

2. This is THEIR game.  We are invited to play it, for free, but we do NOT "own" it.  It is THEIR art, and they get to choose what they find acceptable within that medium. 

3. Being rated "Mature" does not excuse casual hate-speech.  It's rated M for "MATURE", not for "Adult"...  So be mature about it.  That means, in part, not resorting to juvenile language, or worse yet, hate-speech, to "get a rise" out of people.

DE has their own company core values... and those are expressed in their game, THEIR creation.  If they wanna block the word "Dagger", they're welcome to do so.  Is it odd, given that it overlaps with intentional language in the game? Sure.  But are those items/NPCs in the game controlled by the company, and NOT by random trolls? Also sure. 

Again, FEEDBACK is for posting things like bugs and oversights in code.  General Discussion isn't a productive forum by which to affect the game.

And no, to some others, we do NOT need to make excuses for bigots or racists, EVER.  Being a S#&$e person is just that, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LillyRaccune said:

I think it is weird that you want to insult anyone using "buzz-words". There's all sorts of things wrong with your idea, but you lose the moral high-ground the moment you do something like that.

This is sort of the crux of the issue though.

Words only have the power people give them, certain words are deemed by society as so bad that they are almost unspeakable. Now when an argument descends into inflicting pain onto others you can why such words might be used. This is exactly why trolls and immature people use these words to try and trigger people and you can see that it works by replies in this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GrayArchon said:

I think you're drawing an unnecessary distinction. What is the difference between someone who uses a racial slur because they're racist and someone who uses a racial slur in order to hurt? The hurt suffered by the other person is the same in both cases. And if you're using a racial slur only because you think it'll hurt, that's not really a defensible position. It means you are okay with racist language and a set of behaviour that reinforces the racism already inherent to our society. At that point, I don't think there is a useful distinction between that person and someone who is just a straight-up racist.

We can't judge people for their thoughts because we can't know their thoughts. We judge people by their actions. The two aggressors in the hypothetical, one being racist and one acting racist on an impulse, have identical actions with identical effects. Therefore, I think we should judge them identically.

If I had a coworker who hated me because of my race, who thought I was inferior, but never did or said anything to act on those beliefs, I would rather work with them than with a different coworker who called me racial slurs and invoked stereotypes just because they thought it was funny and wanted to get a rise out of me.

There is a big difference, since one use aims for the weakness of the target, the other because the person using it is closeminded. And it is just as defensible to use it as any other word that effectively truely hurts a person. It also doesnt mean I'm ok with racist language, that is a very huge oversimplification on your part. It is simply about understanding the psychology of others. And there is a massive difference between someone using those words at time and a straight-up racist. The person using it to hurt doesnt find himself as a superior being. It is really no different than someone making use of any other word or phrase they know will hurt the other party.

But their actions arent identical, they serve different purposes and come from different ideas.

I agree, I'd rather work with the passive bigot. But then I also need to ask you, when did I imply joking about race or using racial slurs regularly was OK? It is if the person you tell it to finds it funny aswell. But at that point it tends to be someone you know well. And I've been there myself. I had a black guy in my class years back, he was very much into "white" music, so we called him Nogger, which was an ice-cream with a chocolate core, covered in vanilla and dipped in a layer of chocolate. He found it hilarious, if he hadnt we wouldnt have called him that. Just as we the swedes were OK with the slavs calling us svenne and they were ok with us calling them blatte. Things that simply released tension. If someone did the same a couple of years earlier you'd have a massive scrap between skinheads and immigrants instead of S#&$s and giggles.

10 hours ago, L3512 said:

This is sort of the crux of the issue though.

Words only have the power people give them, certain words are deemed by society as so bad that they are almost unspeakable. Now when an argument descends into inflicting pain onto others you can why such words might be used. This is exactly why trolls and immature people use these words to try and trigger people and you can see that it works by replies in this thread.

 

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

There is a big difference, since one use aims for the weakness of the target, the other because the person using it is closeminded. And it is just as defensible to use it as any other word that effectively truely hurts a person. It also doesnt mean I'm ok with racist language, that is a very huge oversimplification on your part. It is simply about understanding the psychology of others. And there is a massive difference between someone using those words at time and a straight-up racist. The person using it to hurt doesnt find himself as a superior being. It is really no different than someone making use of any other word or phrase they know will hurt the other party.

But their actions arent identical, they serve different purposes and come from different ideas.

My point is that the effects of the actions are the same regardless of the motivation. The motivation is not important if we care about stopping the effects. You're pointing out the difference in these two people's mindset, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the person on the other end suffers.

6 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And it is just as defensible to use it as any other word that effectively truely hurts a person.

Using words that hurt people is not defensible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

There is a big difference, since one use aims for the weakness of the target, the other because the person using it is closeminded. And it is just as defensible to use it as any other word that effectively truely hurts a person. It also doesnt mean I'm ok with racist language, that is a very huge oversimplification on your part. It is simply about understanding the psychology of others. And there is a massive difference between someone using those words at time and a straight-up racist. The person using it to hurt doesnt find himself as a superior being. It is really no different than someone making use of any other word or phrase they know will hurt the other party.

But their actions arent identical, they serve different purposes and come from different ideas.

I agree, I'd rather work with the passive bigot. But then I also need to ask you, when did I imply joking about race or using racial slurs regularly was OK? It is if the person you tell it to finds it funny aswell. But at that point it tends to be someone you know well. And I've been there myself. I had a black guy in my class years back, he was very much into "white" music, so we called him Nogger, which was an ice-cream with a chocolate core, covered in vanilla and dipped in a layer of chocolate. He found it hilarious, if he hadnt we wouldnt have called him that. Just as we the swedes were OK with the slavs calling us svenne and they were ok with us calling them blatte. Things that simply released tension. If someone did the same a couple of years earlier you'd have a massive scrap between skinheads and immigrants instead of S#&$s and giggles.

 

This really isn't the defensible position you think it is, I'm afraid.  I usually like most of the stuff you post, and you seem to be pretty sensible and level-headed, so I'm just gonna give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that this kinda went over your head (with ALL due respect).  

I've known countless people who've allowed people they called "friends" to do the same...  One of them laughed along with their friends... and killed himself some years later from how he felt and never knew how to talk about it. (;-;)

I, myself, used to "laugh along with my friends" when they used hurtful terms and nicknames, because I felt "accepted", and feared if I didn't, I'd be laughed at instead.  Was a tough youth (not as tough as some, but nonetheless..)

..and it led me to MANY, many issues with anxiety and depression, issues with rejection and bullying and suicidal ideations, etc.  I mean, when the people you call FRIENDS are the ones slinging hurtful terms, just imagine what those who DIDN'T "like" you were doing... 

Obviously, in your example, your intent did not seem to be to HURT the guy, but that doesn't mean he was honest with how he felt about it.  You can't know how someone internalizes things to "get by".  

Maybe he WAS... idk.  You don't REALLY know.  No one does.   But the NEXT person who gets called something similar, or worse, and is allowed to be called that because the rules were "relaxed" may not take it so well.

So, makes more sense to just keep things polite, yeah?  Even in spite of the game's theme of warfare, we're not here to attack EACH OTHER. 

 

Allowing hurtful terminologies to be "socially acceptable" is allowing those who DO weaponize them to push the line ever further in their favor.

There's no reason to do that.  

And being that it's DE's game/platform, it's entirely within their rights to decide what language is and is not acceptable, as you or I would do in our own homes.

THAT BEING SAID --  I'm sure there are some issues that are just oversights in the naming filters, but that's better off reported as a Bug or in Feedback than it is in GD anyway, which I'm sure you'd agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

How cute. 

I'm ok with being spared from this kind of humor.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure they didn't post for your approval.

 

7 hours ago, GrayArchon said:

My point is that the effects of the actions are the same regardless of the motivation. The motivation is not important if we care about stopping the effects. You're pointing out the difference in these two people's mindset, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the person on the other end suffers.

Using words that hurt people is not defensible!

Understanding the motivation is important if you want to stop the effects for how can you hope to change something without understanding it?

There's a long list of things that hurt more than words, let alone the words of randos on the internet or ingame. You can not control peoples actions, only your reaction, see something you don't like? Report it if you need to and move on, you can choose not to be offended by losers that troll.

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)JustJoshinEnt said:

This really isn't the defensible position you think it is, I'm afraid.

Try to think of it as an explanation for why people say what they say rather than a personal position. 

Children can be mean little C***s that will naturally tribalize, only with the hindsight of being an adult will people see it as wrong. Some people never will.

 

1 hour ago, (PSN)JustJoshinEnt said:

Allowing hurtful terminologies to be "socially acceptable" is allowing those who DO weaponize them to push the line ever further in their favor.

This is the burden of free speech unfortunately, the majority can deem something unacceptable and a minority will seek to use it. 

DE is a company though so they can do whatever they want, which isn't bad because enabling some segments of society would be like turning chat into an open sewer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, L3512 said:

Try to think of it as an explanation for why people say what they say rather than a personal position. 

Children can be mean little C***s that will naturally tribalize, only with the hindsight of being an adult will people see it as wrong. Some people never will.

 

This is the burden of free speech unfortunately, the majority can deem something unacceptable and a minority will seek to use it. 

DE is a company though so they can do whatever they want, which isn't bad because enabling some segments of society would be like turning chat into an open sewer.  

1. DE DID choose how to react/respond to people... they chose to be proactive and ban words they didn't want used... as is their right in their game.

2. "free speech" doesn't mean "everything goes".  In fact, depending on which country you're talking about, it has quite a few limits.  DE isn't American, for one, so (and I'm assuming a bit here, admittedly), let's make sure we're aware which "Free Speech" doctrine we're applying to this situation.  Secondly, "personal freedoms" end where someone else's begin.  You can wave your hand freely... until it hits MY face, at which point you're infringing on MY "freedoms", and thus it's not allowed.  

Furthermore, "Hate Speech" is not protected speech.  And, as you also pointed out, DE is its own company, and as such, has full choice over what speech is allowed on their private platform.  

DE, and presumably the majority of players in this game (I mean, it IS "rated M", after all) ARE "adults" (and I use that term VERY loosely) ... and thus, by your own admission, should see that these things are "wrong".  Those that never DO see the wrong in it is their own problem, and not a reason for DE to excuse those players' shortcomings.

---

In any case, yeah, I know people can be crappy, and I know that to an extent we have to learn to "deal with it"...  but we never have to be okay with it, and certainly don't have to condone it.  If people have an issue with hateful terminology being blocked, and they leave because of it, then they're probably exactly the kind of person we DON'T need in the Warframe community anyway.  

(P.S.: This response was more addressing points, and was in no way personally aimed AT YOU, just fyi. Didn't wanna come across wrong.  It's 5 am and I've not yet slept, so... words x.x  lol)

(P.P.S.:  I wasn't taking it "personally", to be clear... but rather providing personal experience to point out that it DOES happen, and there ARE real people who "put on a face" in public, but take the hurt home later...  And so those people are worth considering here.  Not me, specifically...  I just thought providing personal experience might be more worthwhile in the "debate" than just making baseless statements.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

I'm ok with being spared from this kind of humor.

And that is your full freedom which should be respected.

15 hours ago, GrayArchon said:

My point is that the effects of the actions are the same regardless of the motivation. The motivation is not important if we care about stopping the effects. You're pointing out the difference in these two people's mindset, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the person on the other end suffers.

Using words that hurt people is not defensible!

But the whole deal regarding if hurtful words are defensible or not is a completely different topic. That wasnt my point at all.

9 hours ago, (PSN)JustJoshinEnt said:

This really isn't the defensible position you think it is, I'm afraid.  I usually like most of the stuff you post, and you seem to be pretty sensible and level-headed, so I'm just gonna give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that this kinda went over your head (with ALL due respect).  

I've known countless people who've allowed people they called "friends" to do the same...  One of them laughed along with their friends... and killed himself some years later from how he felt and never knew how to talk about it. (;-;)

I, myself, used to "laugh along with my friends" when they used hurtful terms and nicknames, because I felt "accepted", and feared if I didn't, I'd be laughed at instead.  Was a tough youth (not as tough as some, but nonetheless..)

..and it led me to MANY, many issues with anxiety and depression, issues with rejection and bullying and suicidal ideations, etc.  I mean, when the people you call FRIENDS are the ones slinging hurtful terms, just imagine what those who DIDN'T "like" you were doing... 

Obviously, in your example, your intent did not seem to be to HURT the guy, but that doesn't mean he was honest with how he felt about it.  You can't know how someone internalizes things to "get by".  

Maybe he WAS... idk.  You don't REALLY know.  No one does.   But the NEXT person who gets called something similar, or worse, and is allowed to be called that because the rules were "relaxed" may not take it so well.

So, makes more sense to just keep things polite, yeah?  Even in spite of the game's theme of warfare, we're not here to attack EACH OTHER. 

 

Allowing hurtful terminologies to be "socially acceptable" is allowing those who DO weaponize them to push the line ever further in their favor.

There's no reason to do that.  

And being that it's DE's game/platform, it's entirely within their rights to decide what language is and is not acceptable, as you or I would do in our own homes.

THAT BEING SAID --  I'm sure there are some issues that are just oversights in the naming filters, but that's better off reported as a Bug or in Feedback than it is in GD anyway, which I'm sure you'd agree with.

I've known the same type of people, but it isnt hard to tell when those people actually are uncomfortable with it. There are extremely few people I've used "nicknames" for in their face, because I've known their insecurity about whatever the nickname might involve. If people dont notice that with their friends then they arent friends at all, they are just bullies with a portable punching bag at that point. And that is a whole different issue while what I'm talking about is simple tough love, actual sincere love between friends. Heck you could even call it unconditional.

And we knew our friend was OK with the ice-cream reference, since we were just that close in our group of friends. And it is nothing that popped up the moment we got to know eachother.

I also dont think anyone has implied it should be OK to spread these things in a game like WF. My point has only been that just because you call someone something for some reason it doesnt mean you suddenly support or become part of a specific ideology. Since those are -isms, which implies a strong rooted belief in something. Or am I a satanist for suddenly burping out a word like "hell" in a situation?

And since hurtful terminology can be anything, we shouldnt focus more on one word than the other, but that is a different discussion. A discussion similar to if throwing fists in a heated situation is defensible or not. And I dont know about you, if I can avoid a fist fight by dropping a soul crushing reference in someones face I see that as a win for everyone.

I fully support DE for trying to keep it out of the game, their approach is just bad imo since it should be solved in other ways that do not cut the legit players with the same scythe as the kids, trolls and bigots. I've seen few games with the scorched earth approach that DE has taken, I mean it is to a silly point in WF when we cant even talk about potential future kit related things like traps (as a skill). You know a censor system has gone too far at that point. Imagine playing WoW and playing a hunter with such silly censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...