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

PS4 chat ban makes no sense


(PSN)AnaLoGMunKy
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Meaning and usage are part of language evolution.

And, of course society dictates what is and isn't acceptable.  How else do we decide?  But, no "gay" is not the FOTM.  It's been a slur for decades now (longer even?) and it's only come up now because some people think it's OK to use a slur to describe things they don't like, because "being edgy" or something.

Lastly, no one uses the word to describe being happy or jovial anymore, so I'm not at all concerned about that.  And, if people are so bent out of shape that they can't use a slur and leave, they were going to cause trouble and cause other people to leave anyway.

Why are you trying so hard to defend a term that we both know is used as a slur by people outside of the LGBTQI community?  Are you really that bent out of shape because Kickbot will flag you for using slurs that you don't have to use?

Im not "tryin" to do anything. Im stating simple fact. 

 

The word "gay" isnt slanderous, insulting or a slur. It like many other words in human language, CAN BE used in a slanderous way. The original intent of the word "gay" was used by homosexual men, for homosexual men in a non slanderous way to identify each other, and is still used by the LGBT+ community across the world on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, (PS4)big_eviljak said:

Im not "tryin" to do anything. Im stating simple fact. 

 

The word "gay" isnt slanderous, insulting or a slur. It like many other words in human language, CAN BE used in a slanderous way. The original intent of the word "gay" was used by homosexual men, for homosexual men in a non slanderous way to identify each other, and is still used by the LGBT+ community across the world on a daily basis.

You're downplaying the real harm that homosexuals face by denying the fact that many people do use it as a slur.  Again, what is your ulterior motive here?  People don't usually stick their fingers in their ears and cry, "I can't hear you" so hard unless they have some motive for doing so.  Are you simply trying to be edgy or something?  If so, I'll let you in on a secret.  Fighting for your "right" to use slurs doesn't make you edgy, it just makes you a jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

You're downplaying the real harm that homosexuals face by denying the fact that many people do use it as a slur.  Again, what is your ulterior motive here?  People don't usually stick their fingers in their ears and cry, "I can't hear you" so hard unless they have some motive for doing so.  Are you simply trying to be edgy or something?  If so, I'll let you in on a secret.  Fighting for your "right" to use slurs doesn't make you edgy, it just makes you a jerk.

I believe human beings have the right to be straight, bi, lesbian, gay, trans or any other color way they choose. I dont recognize racism, sexism or bigotry...nor do i promote it. I have homosexual friends and family members as well as connection to multiple types of people. Most if not all of the people im in contact with, use the word "gay" to describe themselves, their partners and their community and tbh, this is the first time ive heard anyone suggest the word is slanderous.

 

So...

Im makin an argument that though it CAN be used in a slanderous way.... It isnt in itself slanderous.

 

Also...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_slang_terms

 

These are considered offensive by the homosexual community.

Edited by (PS4)big_eviljak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, (PS4)big_eviljak said:

I believe human beings have the right to be straight, bi, lesbian, gay, trans or any other color way they choose. I dont recognize racism, sexism or bigotry...nor do i promote it. I have homosexual friends and family members as well as connection to multiple types of people. Most if not all of the people im in contact with, use the word "gay" to describe themselves, their partners and their community and tbh, this is the first time ive heard anyone suggest the word is slanderous.

If you're not a native English speaker, I might find this possible, though still not plausible.  I don't think you're being honest here, especially given your initial insistence that "gay" means happy or jovial that you've now switched.  C'mon.

The most used context of the word is to use it in a derogatory way.  If you're really not aware of that, then consider it before claiming that it is a non-issue.  Let me just say I'm highly suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

If you're not a native English speaker, I might find this possible, though still not plausible.  I don't think you're being honest here, especially given your initial insistence that "gay" means happy or jovial that you've now switched.  C'mon.

The most used context of the word is to use it in a derogatory way.  If you're really not aware of that, then consider it before claiming that it is a non-issue.  Let me just say I'm highly suspicious.

The word "gay* originally meant jovial or happy. Im makin the argument that many words have positive meanings but are iftentimes used in less than positive ways.

The word"gay" isnt slanderous or negative. Its sometimes used in such a way i suppose.

Btw... 

 

This is one of my favorite WF YouTubers. He is the guru of fashion frame. Check him out sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, (PS4)big_eviljak said:

The word "gay* originally meant jovial or happy. Im makin the argument that many words have positive meanings but are iftentimes used in less than positive ways.

The word"gay" isnt slanderous or negative. Its sometimes used in such a way i suppose.

You suppose?

No one is saying that "gay" didn't used to have a different meaning, but again, language evolves.  It is not the meaning that anyone (barring an infinitesimally small group) ascribes to the word now.  Continually pointing to "gay" meaning happy or jovial is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

There are many words that are not "slanderous or negative" (why slanderous, which means untrue and will harm someone's reputation?) that are commonly used as such.  So what?  That changes nothing about how the word is commonly used.  Many black people refer to each other using the N-word.  Do you think that makes it OK for people to use the N-word in the WF chats?  Do you think that means that it's OK if non-black people use it, especially in a derogatory sense?  Or, are you going to say that you "suppose" that some people might use it that way, but who cares?  Your obstinate refusal to deal with the fact that this word is used as a slur and in a derogatory manner more often than any other usage and is only really used in an acceptable way by people in the LGBTQI community is rather telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

You suppose?

No one is saying that "gay" didn't used to have a different meaning, but again, language evolves.  It is not the meaning that anyone (barring an infinitesimally small group) ascribes to the word now.  Continually pointing to "gay" meaning happy or jovial is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

There are many words that are not "slanderous or negative" (why slanderous, which means untrue and will harm someone's reputation?) that are commonly used as such.  So what?  That changes nothing about how the word is commonly used.  Many black people refer to each other using the N-word.  Do you think that makes it OK for people to use the N-word in the WF chats?  Do you think that means that it's OK if non-black people use it, especially in a derogatory sense?  Or, are you going to say that you "suppose" that some people might use it that way, but who cares?  Your obstinate refusal to deal with the fact that this word is used as a slur and in a derogatory manner more often than any other usage and is only really used in an acceptable way by people in the LGBTQI community is rather telling.

Did u watch my YouTube video? 

Is Rob offended by the name of his own channel?

Edited by (PS4)big_eviljak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, (PS4)big_eviljak said:

Did u watch my YouTube video? 

Is Rob offended by the name of his own channel?

OK, it's obvious that you have no intention of dealing with what I'm saying with any sort of intellectual honesty.  At this point, I'm writing you off as either a troll, someone who thinks their being edgy and abuses these words to make people upset, or both.

ETA:  I've put you on ignore.

Edited by (XB1)R3d P01nt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

So, how do you decide then if not a societal decision?  Who gets to decide?  What happens when you or I don't agree with the decision?

Therein lies the rub. These are excellent questions and I don't have an answer to them. However relying on a system that is inherently relativistic is not the way to go.

43 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

By that logic, the N-word is also not a slur.  But, we know that it is used that way, as is "gay" as is "retard".  If you're fine with Kickbot censoring out the N-word (you are, aren't you?) then why not those other words?  (And, BTW, "retard" is one that gets my hackles up as well.  I've known too many people that have suffered brain injuries and then been subject to that slur as well as the common usage that adds insult to their injury that I really dislike it and have been known to ask people to curtail their usage of it online as well as IRL.).

You are quite correct. By that logic words like that should be allowed. Here's why: if a subgroup makes use of a word and is completely fine with it, how does using that word, in precisely the same fashion, suddenly not become fine simply because one is not part of that subgroup? What changes that makes a word OK in one instance and not OK in another? What I personally may or may not be OK with is not the issue here. The issue is, as the old adage goes: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

49 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Perhaps I used some hyperbole, but the amount of people who use that word in that way is infinitesimal.  And, no you aren't being discriminated against if Kickbot censors your use of the word.  To even make that statement downplays the real discrimination that people face from being gay in a society that devalues, reviles, and even kills them.

More hyperbole I see. Even if only one person uses correctly they shouldn't be hindered from doing so. If I want to say, "I'm having a gay old time playing Warframe." I shouldn't be censored for doing so. It downplays nothing. Once again you are using hyperbole to make your point. I know all too well what being devalued, reviled and killed is like because it happens to my subgroup within my own native country. Once again, you speak of society as some monolith, which it is not.

57 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I really don't understand this comment at all.  I don't understand the need to play Devil's advocate - it's completely unnecessary.  I don't understand what minority is holding greater sway on anything - they aren't.  I don't understand why you believe the word is devoid of context - it never is.

Playing devil's advocate is absolutely necessary because it forced people to think about views contrary to their own. It forces one to think outside of the box and entertain ideas they would not otherwise think about since it is more comfortable to hold to one's own fixed concepts. And if you don't see how a minority is holding sway: this whole topic arose around the use of the word "gay": a word that has been hijacked to mean something that it originally didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

OK, it's obvious that you have no intention of dealing with what I'm saying with any sort of intellectual honesty.  At this point, I'm writing you off as either a troll, someone who thinks their being edgy and abuses these words to make people upset, or both.

ETA:  I've put you on ignore.

I started this conversation merely stating facts. I haven't given my personal adaptation beyond the views of my closest friends and family. The word in question isno more slanderous than the word "wet" or "" racoon" or "you" and yet even these words can be used in slanderous ways.

 

A word is in itself just that.... A word. Its nothing until its empowered with an idea, a thought or a specific intent.

 

"Gay" is just a word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Therein lies the rub. These are excellent questions and I don't have an answer to them. However relying on a system that is inherently relativistic is not the way to go.

It's the only method we have, short of dictatorial rule, which would be inherently worse.

7 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

You are quite correct. By that logic words like that should be allowed. Here's why: if a subgroup makes use of a word and is completely fine with it, how does using that word, in precisely the same fashion, suddenly not become fine simply because one is not part of that subgroup? What changes that makes a word OK in one instance and not OK in another? What I personally may or may not be OK with is not the issue here. The issue is, as the old adage goes: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Except, it's not.  A white person calling a black person by the N-word is inherently different from two black people causally using the word in conversation.  Not being part of the subgroup means that the dynamic is not the same for the white person.  The white person has not suffered racism like the black person has.  The white person doesn't understand what the black person has gone through or what black people have gone through.  We're back to talking about context, which I admitted was important, and this is why.

10 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

More hyperbole I see. Even if only one person uses correctly they shouldn't be hindered from doing so. If I want to say, "I'm having a gay old time playing Warframe." I shouldn't be censored for doing so. It downplays nothing. Once again you are using hyperbole to make your point. I know all too well what being devalued, reviled and killed is like because it happens to my subgroup within my own native country. Once again, you speak of society as some monolith, which it is not.

I disagree completely.  The first thing I disagree with is this notion that using the word "gay" to mean happy or jovial is the "correct" use of the word.  It is not.  Language evolves and proper usage evolves with it.  What is "correct" from a century ago is not necessarily correct today, and that is true of a myriad of words (and, yes, I intentionally used "myriad" as a noun instead of the original form of the word, because language has evolved to accept both usages).

The second thing I object to is that one shouldn't be censored for using a word in a context that no one uses it anymore that is used overwhelmingly in a different and derogatory context.  Kickbot has to err on the side of caution, or else there's no use in having it.

Next, I object to the idea that this downplays nothing.  Of course it does.  If you were speaking up against people who use the word in a derogatory way, I'd be with you.  But, you're speaking up for people to use the word in a derogatory way without consequence, which I cannot support.  I understand that you're concerned about people who don't use it derogatorily getting swept up, but the end result is that the main usage of the word gets cleared and we get far more use of the derogatory context than not.

I'm sorry that you happen to be part of a group that is repressed in your country.

17 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Playing devil's advocate is absolutely necessary because it forced people to think about views contrary to their own. It forces one to think outside of the box and entertain ideas they would not otherwise think about since it is more comfortable to hold to one's own fixed concepts. And if you don't see how a minority is holding sway: this whole topic arose around the use of the word "gay": a word that has been hijacked to mean something that it originally didn't.

I disagree, again.  There is no need for a devil's advocate.  If you hold the positions that you are supporting through your arguments, then you aren't truly playing devil's advocate, you're simply trying to argue for your own views.

Second, given that "gay" is used as a derogatory word, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the LGBTQI community is holding any sort of sway over the word.

Lastly, the idea of hijacking a word again goes to language evolution.  Besides, according to others here, the LGBTQI community hijacked it first.  Then, was it hijacked again to its derogatory meaning?  It's a dead-end argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

It's the only method we have, short of dictatorial rule, which would be inherently worse.

Except, it's not.  A white person calling a black person by the N-word is inherently different from two black people causally using the word in conversation.  Not being part of the subgroup means that the dynamic is not the same for the white person.  The white person has not suffered racism like the black person has.  The white person doesn't understand what the black person has gone through or what black people have gone through.  We're back to talking about context, which I admitted was important, and this is why.

I disagree completely.  The first thing I disagree with is this notion that using the word "gay" to mean happy or jovial is the "correct" use of the word.  It is not.  Language evolves and proper usage evolves with it.  What is "correct" from a century ago is not necessarily correct today, and that is true of a myriad of words (and, yes, I intentionally used "myriad" as a noun instead of the original form of the word, because language has evolved to accept both usages).

The second thing I object to is that one shouldn't be censored for using a word in a context that no one uses it anymore that is used overwhelmingly in a different and derogatory context.  Kickbot has to err on the side of caution, or else there's no use in having it.

Next, I object to the idea that this downplays nothing.  Of course it does.  If you were speaking up against people who use the word in a derogatory way, I'd be with you.  But, you're speaking up for people to use the word in a derogatory way without consequence, which I cannot support.  I understand that you're concerned about people who don't use it derogatorily getting swept up, but the end result is that the main usage of the word gets cleared and we get far more use of the derogatory context than not.

I'm sorry that you happen to be part of a group that is repressed in your country.

I disagree, again.  There is no need for a devil's advocate.  If you hold the positions that you are supporting through your arguments, then you aren't truly playing devil's advocate, you're simply trying to argue for your own views.

Second, given that "gay" is used as a derogatory word, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the LGBTQI community is holding any sort of sway over the word.

Lastly, the idea of hijacking a word again goes to language evolution.  Besides, according to others here, the LGBTQI community hijacked it first.  Then, was it hijacked again to its derogatory meaning?  It's a dead-end argument.

So...

What ur saying is its ok for homosexuals to call themselves gay because their in the same sub group? However is slanderous for non homosexuals  to use the word?

 

Theres a gray area in ur thinking.

The word isnt slanderous, but it like many words can be used in slanderous ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

It's the only method we have, short of dictatorial rule, which would be inherently worse.

Just because it is currently the only method we have does not mean we should just accept it. We should strive to better ourselves and find a more non-relativistic way to deal with this sort of issue.

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Except, it's not.  A white person calling a black person by the N-word is inherently different from two black people causally using the word in conversation.  Not being part of the subgroup means that the dynamic is not the same for the white person.  The white person has not suffered racism like the black person has.  The white person doesn't understand what the black person has gone through or what black people have gone through.  We're back to talking about context, which I admitted was important, and this is why.

You've just revealed another fatal flaw with letting "society" dictate anything. I'm going to specifically speak about "North American" society now, because that is what the majority of this conversation hinges around. There is a constant push in "society" today to do away with all sorts of gender and racial barriers: the notion that, "Hey, you're ok, I'm ok, we're all ok and there are no differences between us. We're all equal." What you illustrate above proves how truly farcical that notion of equality (and "society") is. You show that when "society" says that "We're all equal." it really means "We're all equal until we're not. [Insert subgroup of your choice here] is more equal than [Insert individual not part of said subgroup]." To say that a white person has not suffered racism like a black person, or doesn't (or can't) understand is a laughable claim. What makes us human is that we are capable of expressing empathy. We absolutely can understand what another social group endures because we all share the same human condition. As soon as you say that one group cannot relate to another, you introduce a divide. The "dynamic" you speak of, should be non-existent, because at our core, we all share the same nature. We all experience the world in the same way: as human beings; which is distinct from how birds experience the world, or whales, or microorganisms. So "society" has to decide: either race and gender do matter or they don't.

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I disagree completely.  The first thing I disagree with is this notion that using the word "gay" to mean happy or jovial is the "correct" use of the word.  It is not.  Language evolves and proper usage evolves with it.  What is "correct" from a century ago is not necessarily correct today, and that is true of a myriad of words (and, yes, I intentionally used "myriad" as a noun instead of the original form of the word, because language has evolved to accept both usages).

The second thing I object to is that one shouldn't be censored for using a word in a context that no one uses it anymore that is used overwhelmingly in a different and derogatory context.  Kickbot has to err on the side of caution, or else there's no use in having it.

Next, I object to the idea that this downplays nothing.  Of course it does.  If you were speaking up against people who use the word in a derogatory way, I'd be with you.  But, you're speaking up for people to use the word in a derogatory way without consequence, which I cannot support.  I understand that you're concerned about people who don't use it derogatorily getting swept up, but the end result is that the main usage of the word gets cleared and we get far more use of the derogatory context than not.

I'm sorry that you happen to be part of a group that is repressed in your country.

Of course using the word "gay" to mean happy and/or jovial is the "correct" use of the word. If you look it up in the dictionary, it still possess that meaning. Just because the meaning has been expanded to include a way to describe a subgroup does not invalidate a previous definition/use. (As an aside: I'm not sure why you singled out your use of the word "myriad" here. It derives from the Greek word μυριάς, (myrias) which means "ten thousand" and has been expanded to mean "innumerable or countless", which has, in essence, the same connotation).

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I disagree, again.  There is no need for a devil's advocate.  If you hold the positions that you are supporting through your arguments, then you aren't truly playing devil's advocate, you're simply trying to argue for your own views.

Second, given that "gay" is used as a derogatory word, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the LGBTQI community is holding any sort of sway over the word.

Lastly, the idea of hijacking a word again goes to language evolution.  Besides, according to others here, the LGBTQI community hijacked it first.  Then, was it hijacked again to its derogatory meaning?  It's a dead-end argument.

If you have a problem with the words "devil's advocate" simply think of this as me presenting a counterpoint to your original point. I have to applaud your attempt to find out what my actual thoughts on the issue are, but I'm not going to bite (because, in the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a counterpoint being presented that is just as valid as the original point).

To your second point: "gay" can be (and sadly, more often than not, is) used in a derogatory fashion, but not always, and that cannot be understated. Once again, even in today's dictionaries, the word still has the meaning of "happy and/or jovial" which is just as valid a use for the word as any. And I never said the "LGBTQI community is holding any sort of sway over the word". I said "a minority", which is significantly different.

Edited by (PS4)abbacephas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Just because it is currently the only method we have does not mean we should just accept it. We should strive to better ourselves and find a more non-relativistic way to deal with this sort of issue.

Except what is or isn't offensive/degrading/etc is in the eye of the beholder.

If it's any consolation to you, think about how we look back at previous generations and shake our heads at their issues with racism, etc.  Just think that future generations will do the same to us.  It may not be a straight line, but the arc of humanity bends towards more moral, more inclusive, more tolerant positions if you look back through history.

6 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

You've just revealed another fatal flaw with letting "society" dictate anything. I'm going to specifically speak about "North American" society now, because that is what the majority of this conversation hinges around. There is a constant push in "society" today to do away with all sorts of gender and racial barriers: the notion that, "Hey, you're ok, I'm ok, we're all ok and there are no differences between us. We're all equal." What you illustrate above proves how truly farcical that notion of equality (and "society") is. You show that when "society" says that "We're all equal." it really means "We're all equal until we're not. [Insert subgroup of your choice here] is more equal than [Insert individual not part of said subgroup]." To say that a white person has not suffered racism like a black person, or doesn't (or can't) understand is a laughable claim. What makes us human is that we are capable of expressing empathy. We absolutely can understand what another social group endures because we all share the same human condition. As soon as you say that one group cannot relate to another, you introduce a divide. The "dynamic" you speak of, should be non-existent, because at our core, we all share the same nature. We all experience the world in the same way: as human beings; which is distinct from how birds experience the world, or whales, or microorganisms. So "society" has to decide: either race and gender do matter or they don't.

I'm sorry, but white people cannot understand what it is like to live in a world that is institutionally racist.  White people can empathize, can console, and most importantly can listen and try to redress wrongs, but white people cannot understand what it is like to be something they are not.  This has nothing at all to do with some groups being equal until they aren't.  It has to do with equality under law while simultaneously understanding that how one interacts with the world, or more importantly how the world interacts with the person, is not uniform.

9 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Of course using the word "gay" to mean happy and/or jovial is the "correct" use of the word. If you look it up in the dictionary, it still possess that meaning. Just because the meaning has been expanded to include a way to describe a subgroup does not invalidate a previous definition/use. (As an aside: I'm not sure why you singled out your use of the word "myriad" here. It derives from the Greek word μυριάς, (myrias) which means "ten thousand" and has been expanded to mean "innumerable or countless", which has, in essence, the same connotation).

It is a "correct" use of the word, in the trivial sense that the dictionary says so, but it is not the correct use of the word.  This is especially true given that it's usage in that sense is simply not done and is archaic.  Who uses the word in that sense?  I can't remember anyone outside of a period piece movie/show/production where it was in the script to lend authenticity to the time period.  And, no, the expansion of use doesn't invalidate the usage.  It's the fact that no one uses it that way that renders it obsolete ("invalidate" is not the right word here for me).

12 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

If you have a problem with the words "devil's advocate" simply think of this as me presenting a counterpoint to your original point. I have to applaud your attempt to find out what my actual thoughts on the issue are, but I'm not going to bite (because, in the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is an argument is being presented that is just as valid as the original point).

I have a problem with the concept.  If one supports position A, then one should argue for position A.  If one does not support position A, then one should not argue for position A.  Thinking up confounding points for an argument is a good strategy for refining one's own position, but doesn't generally serve to be useful when discussing with others, especially in cases that touch on emotional topics like equality.

14 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

To your second point: "gay" can be (and sadly, more often than not, is) used in a derogatory fashion, but not always, and that cannot be understated. Once again, even in today's dictionaries, the word still has the meaning of "happy and/or jovial" which is just as valid a use for the word as any. And I never said the "LGBTQI community is holding any sort of sway over the word". I said "a minority", which is significantly different.

And, that's sort of the point here.  Even if it is not always used in a derogatory fashion, it more often than not is.  I can see why DE would want Kickbot to look for it.

Secondly, I made an assumption I see that you meant the LGBTQI community, and it was wrong.  OK.  It doesn't change the fact that whatever minority you seem to be talking about is not holding sway, else "gay" would not be used so frequently in a derogatory manner and people would see it as such when it is used that way.  I've been in too many Xbox One chats with people who don't even see it as bad to use the word in a derogatory fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Except what is or isn't offensive/degrading/etc is in the eye of the beholder.

If it's any consolation to you, think about how we look back at previous generations and shake our heads at their issues with racism, etc.  Just think that future generations will do the same to us.  It may not be a straight line, but the arc of humanity bends towards more moral, more inclusive, more tolerant positions if you look back through history.

I'm sorry, but white people cannot understand what it is like to live in a world that is institutionally racist.  White people can empathize, can console, and most importantly can listen and try to redress wrongs, but white people cannot understand what it is like to be something they are not.  This has nothing at all to do with some groups being equal until they aren't.  It has to do with equality under law while simultaneously understanding that how one interacts with the world, or more importantly how the world interacts with the person, is not uniform.

It is a "correct" use of the word, in the trivial sense that the dictionary says so, but it is not the correct use of the word.  This is especially true given that it's usage in that sense is simply not done and is archaic.  Who uses the word in that sense?  I can't remember anyone outside of a period piece movie/show/production where it was in the script to lend authenticity to the time period.  And, no, the expansion of use doesn't invalidate the usage.  It's the fact that no one uses it that way that renders it obsolete ("invalidate" is not the right word here for me).

I have a problem with the concept.  If one supports position A, then one should argue for position A.  If one does not support position A, then one should not argue for position A.  Thinking up confounding points for an argument is a good strategy for refining one's own position, but doesn't generally serve to be useful when discussing with others, especially in cases that touch on emotional topics like equality.

And, that's sort of the point here.  Even if it is not always used in a derogatory fashion, it more often than not is.  I can see why DE would want Kickbot to look for it.

Secondly, I made an assumption I see that you meant the LGBTQI community, and it was wrong.  OK.  It doesn't change the fact that whatever minority you seem to be talking about is not holding sway, else "gay" would not be used so frequently in a derogatory manner and people would see it as such when it is used that way.  I've been in too many Xbox One chats with people who don't even see it as bad to use the word in a derogatory fashion.

Ur last 8 words... "to use the word in a derogatory fashion"

Sums up my point. The word itself isnt wrong, or slanderous, or appalling or slurring, It's merely used at times as such.

Ty, for agreeing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Except what is or isn't offensive/degrading/etc is in the eye of the beholder.

Then, perhaps the solution is to "blind" the eye (whatever that entails).

 

2 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

If it's any consolation to you, think about how we look back at previous generations and shake our heads at their issues with racism, etc.  Just think that future generations will do the same to us.  It may not be a straight line, but the arc of humanity bends towards more moral, more inclusive, more tolerant positions if you look back through history.

This is no consolation because the fact of the matter is: nothing has changed. There may be an illusion of change, but really, all that has happened is that goalposts have been moved. One subgroup has been included at the expense of excluding another subgroup. Moral relativism still reigns supreme as it always has. And the concept of "more tolerant positions" is laughably untrue. Here is a definition of "tolerate": 

Quote

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. 

Please note the bolded portion. The battle cry of all groups who claim to be tolerant is: "I'm tolerant. I accept everyone. If you don't agree with me, than you're not tolerant." The crux of those who claim to be tolerant is that they are insofar as you agree with their point of view. If you don't, then you must change your worldview to accommodate them or you are the one who is intolerant. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

 

2 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I'm sorry, but white people cannot understand what it is like to live in a world that is institutionally racist.  White people can empathize, can console, and most importantly can listen and try to redress wrongs, but white people cannot understand what it is like to be something they are not.  This has nothing at all to do with some groups being equal until they aren't.  It has to do with equality under law while simultaneously understanding that how one interacts with the world, or more importantly how the world interacts with the person, is not uniform.

Do you not see the inherent racism in the bolded section above? All races face some form of prejudice, discrimination or antagonism by another race. To say otherwise is to either be naive, or to intentionally turn a blind eye to the reality of it. And it, absolutely has to do with equality and some groups being more equal than others. "The law" is fair and unbiased; it is the interpreters and enforcers of "the law" who do not practice it uniformly.

 

3 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

It is a "correct" use of the word, in the trivial sense that the dictionary says so, but it is not the correct use of the word.  This is especially true given that it's usage in that sense is simply not done and is archaic.  Who uses the word in that sense?  I can't remember anyone outside of a period piece movie/show/production where it was in the script to lend authenticity to the time period.  And, no, the expansion of use doesn't invalidate the usage.  It's the fact that no one uses it that way that renders it obsolete ("invalidate" is not the right word here for me).

This is all purely subjective. If a word has a particular definition and can be used in a particular way that reflects that definition, than the argument as to whether it is "trivial" or "the correct" way is moot. 

 

3 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I have a problem with the concept.  If one supports position A, then one should argue for position A.  If one does not support position A, then one should not argue for position A.  Thinking up confounding points for an argument is a good strategy for refining one's own position, but doesn't generally serve to be useful when discussing with others, especially in cases that touch on emotional topics like equality.

If you have a problem with the concept, than at the end of the day, it is your problem that you have to deal with. A person can hold no strong feeling for or against a particular position and still produce a cogent argument one way or the other. The crux to having a civil, rational discussion is to be able to be dispassionate about the topic at hand. This current exchange is proof positive that it can be done. While you have made it clear that you feel strongly about your position, I am entirely dispassionate about the position I have chosen to take. I'm merely presenting it as a means to further the discussion and engage in a dialogue with the aim to expand our respective views.

 

3 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

And, that's sort of the point here.  Even if it is not always used in a derogatory fashion, it more often than not is.  I can see why DE would want Kickbot to look for it.

Secondly, I made an assumption I see that you meant the LGBTQI community, and it was wrong.  OK.  It doesn't change the fact that whatever minority you seem to be talking about is not holding sway, else "gay" would not be used so frequently in a derogatory manner and people would see it as such when it is used that way.  I've been in too many Xbox One chats with people who don't even see it as bad to use the word in a derogatory fashion.

On the contrary: the minority I am talking about does hold sway. One minority has attributed a particular meaning to the word "gay". Another minority has taken that meaning and assigned a derogatory connotation to it. And lo, here we are now discussing the connotation and denotation of the word "gay".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Then, perhaps the solution is to "blind" the eye (whatever that entails).

No, that is not the solution.  That "solution" is basically telling people who are oppressed to simply shut up about it and take whatever they get.  It's a recipe for going back to the idea that minorities should be second class citizens.  No thanks.

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

This is no consolation because the fact of the matter is: nothing has changed. There may be an illusion of change, but really, all that has happened is that goalposts have been moved. One subgroup has been included at the expense of excluding another subgroup. Moral relativism still reigns supreme as it always has. And the concept of "more tolerant positions" is laughably untrue.

That's simply untrue.  50 years ago, black and white people couldn't get married to each other.  Now, it's not even questioned whether that should be legally allowed.  That's not moving the goalposts, that's real change.  And, it has nothing to do with anything to the expense of another subgroup.

Let me spell this out:  equal rights is not a zero-sum game.  When rights are expanded to include minorities, it does not take away the rights of the majority.  When same sex marriage is allowed, it does nothing to the rights of hetero couples.  When we talk about how people address each other (using derogatory language or whatever) no rights are harmed.  One is still free to use derogatory language as one was free to do in the past.  The difference is that now that person may be judged by their peers differently than they may have been in the past.  But, no one ever had a right to free speech without recrimination.  This is not a lost right.

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Please note the bolded portion. The battle cry of all groups who claim to be tolerant is: "I'm tolerant. I accept everyone. If you don't agree with me, than you're not tolerant." The crux of those who claim to be tolerant is that they are insofar as you agree with their point of view. If you don't, then you must change your worldview to accommodate them or you are the one who is intolerant. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

No, it is not hypocrisy to say that people who are not tolerant of others are intolerant.  Nor is it hypocrisy to claim that one must accept all speech and be silent about it in order to be tolerant.  That would make the term and the concept meaningless.

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Do you not see the inherent racism in the bolded section above? All races face some form of prejudice, discrimination or antagonism by another race. To say otherwise is to either be naive, or to intentionally turn a blind eye to the reality of it. And it, absolutely has to do with equality and some groups being more equal than others. "The law" is fair and unbiased; it is the interpreters and enforcers of "the law" who do not practice it uniformly.

No, it is not inherently racist to point out that people have different experiences, and to note that in the society we live in those experiences are shaped by the color of our skin and how society (in general) treats people based on their skin color.  Nor is it racist to point out that we live in a society steeped in institutional racism.  If you are not part of the repressed minority, you cannot claim to know what it is like to be a member of that repressed minority.  Period.

Secondly, whites do not face racism in this society.  In this society, whites are treated as more equal than others.

Laws are also not always fair and unbiased either (see voter restriction laws for example).  You are correct, however, in pointing out that those who administer the law do show bias, which is a severe problem in this country.  Whites don't have to worry about being shot by police nearly to the same degree as blacks, for instance.

This is kinda going away from the reason I brought it up, however.  I brought it up to demonstrate how relationships can change context.  Think about how you would address a significant other, and now try to imagine some random person walking up on the street and addressing them in the same fashion.  That person doesn't have the same relationship to your SO that you have, and it would probably feel awkward (at best).

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

This is all purely subjective. If a word has a particular definition and can be used in a particular way that reflects that definition, than the argument as to whether it is "trivial" or "the correct" way is moot.

It's purely subjective that no one uses the word "gay" to mean happy or jovial anymore?  It's purely subjective to point out that 1 definition (out of many) that is obsolete and out of usage is not "the correct" definition?

12 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

The crux to having a civil, rational discussion is to be able to be dispassionate about the topic at hand.

I'm going to drop the side discussion on devil's advocate because, while I still don't agree with you, I see it as a side discussion that is more of a diversion than actually leading anywhere.  That said, this part stuck out to me.  I see this sentiment quite often, and I disagree.  This idea is used as a way to discount arguments from people way too often.  I am not dispassionate about this topic, nor will I pretend to be, and it does not render my arguments uncivil nor irrational.  (As an aside, being "civil" has never advanced a social justice movement anywhere.)  I feel very strongly that we should not denigrate oppressed minorities through language.  When people use gay as a slur, it is wrong.  When people say, "That's gay" where they really mean, "That's bad/stupid/something I don't like," it is wrong.

ETA:  I missed this part originally.

Quote

On the contrary: the minority I am talking about does hold sway. One minority has attributed a particular meaning to the word "gay". Another minority has taken that meaning and assigned a derogatory connotation to it. And lo, here we are now discussing the connotation and denotation of the word "gay".

I have no idea what you are talking about.  It's the majority that seems to think that using "gay" in denigrating fashion is OK to do.  It's the minority of people who care about such things who are speaking up to say that it's wrong to do so.  The people who hold sway are the majority group else there might actually be social repercussions for using "gay" in a pejorative way.

Edited by (XB1)R3d P01nt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

No, that is not the solution.  That "solution" is basically telling people who are oppressed to simply shut up about it and take whatever they get.  It's a recipe for going back to the idea that minorities should be second class citizens.  No thanks.

This is certainly one "solution", but it is not the only one. Another is that: instead of looking outwards, people looked at themselves and addressed their own biases, insecurities, faults. As opposed to projecting our insecurities, or imposing our perceived offenses on others, we instead worked to better ourselves, a lot of these issues would disappear.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

That's simply untrue.  50 years ago, black and white people couldn't get married to each other.  Now, it's not even questioned whether that should be legally allowed.  That's not moving the goalposts, that's real change.  And, it has nothing to do with anything to the expense of another subgroup.

There is a serious disconnect with your example. 50 years ago, black and white people could get married to each other. Whether it was legal in the eyes of the state (or whether a subgroup accepted these as proper marriages) is an entirely different matter. And yes, it has something to do with subgroups. Allow me to illustrate:

Subgroup A: People who feel that different races should not intermarry 

Subgroup B: People who feel that different races should intermarry.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Let me spell this out:  equal rights is not a zero-sum game.  When rights are expanded to include minorities, it does not take away the rights of the majority.  When same sex marriage is allowed, it does nothing to the rights of hetero couples.  

There is another serious disconnect here. The example you are providing would seem to indicate that equal rights is a zero-sum game. So which is it? Because if really mean that equal rights is not a zero-sum game, then we are in agreement.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

 When we talk about how people address each other (using derogatory language or whatever) no rights are harmed.  One is still free to use derogatory language as one was free to do in the past.  The difference is that now that person may be judged by their peers differently than they may have been in the past.  But, no one ever had a right to free speech without recrimination.  This is not a lost right.

I think you may not full understand what "banning" entails. A ban is defined as an official or legal prohibition. So you are,quite literally, taking away an individuals rights to say or do something by imposing a ban on that word, phrase or action.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

No, it is not hypocrisy to say that people who are not tolerant of others are intolerant.  Nor is it hypocrisy to claim that one must accept all speech and be silent about it in order to be tolerant.  That would make the term and the concept meaningless.

Once again, that is not what I'm saying. Let me reiterate: "The crux of those who claim to be tolerant is that they are [tolerant] insofar as you agree with their point of view. If you don't, then you must change your worldview to accommodate them [ie. those who claim to be tolerant] or you are the one who is intolerant. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy."

So in a nutshell, yes the term and concept of tolerance is absolutely meaningless. To be completely tolerant is to accept all views (including all contradictory views) as being equally valid and worthy of being taught/spoken/practiced without any interference (as I had defined earlier).

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

No, it is not inherently racist to point out that people have different experiences, and to note that in the society we live in those experiences are shaped by the color of our skin and how society (in general) treats people based on their skin color.  Nor is it racist to point out that we live in a society steeped in institutional racism.  If you are not part of the repressed minority, you cannot claim to know what it is like to be a member of that repressed minority.  Period.

Secondly, whites do not face racism in this society.  In this society, whites are treated as more equal than others.

But you aren't pointing out that people have different experiences. You are stating that white people do not have to deal with institutional racism (which, if I understand correctly, refers to racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions). I'm stating that this is patently false, and is a racist remark in and of itself. It appears you are speaking about U.S. society in particular. The problem is, U.S. "society" is not monolithic either. There exist, within U.S. society, pockets of social institutions that are racist against whites. As I stated before, to say otherwise is either incredibly naive, or intentionally dishonest.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Laws are also not always fair and unbiased either (see voter restriction laws for example). 

Fair point.

 

5 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

This is kinda going away from the reason I brought it up, however.  I brought it up to demonstrate how relationships can change context.  Think about how you would address a significant other, and now try to imagine some random person walking up on the street and addressing them in the same fashion.  That person doesn't have the same relationship to your SO that you have, and it would probably feel awkward (at best).

There is a flaw with this example. You are comparing a deeply intimate relationship between 2 people and extrapolating that to a far less intimate racial (or gender based) classification. Two random black people can meet up, not know each other at all, and casually throw around the n-word without consequence. Likewise, two gay individuals who also do not know each other at all can do the same with the word "gay". Once someone who is not part of that group attempts to do the same, all hell breaks loose. Why? Does the colour of my skin, or my gender preference suddenly change the meaning of the word?

 

6 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

It's purely subjective that no one uses the word "gay" to mean happy or jovial anymore?  It's purely subjective to point out that 1 definition (out of many) that is obsolete and out of usage is not "the correct" definition?

Re-read what I said. The classification of something as "trivial" or "the correct" way is what is subjective. In essence, you are saying that my use of the word is less correct than your use of it. 

 

6 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I'm going to drop the side discussion on devil's advocate because, while I still don't agree with you, I see it as a side discussion that is more of a diversion than actually leading anywhere.  That said, this part stuck out to me.  I see this sentiment quite often, and I disagree.  This idea is used as a way to discount arguments from people way too often.  I am not dispassionate about this topic, nor will I pretend to be, and it does not render my arguments uncivil nor irrational.  (As an aside, being "civil" has never advanced a social justice movement anywhere.) 

For your benefit, I'm going to post the definition of dispassionate (because, based on your response, I don't believe you understand what it means):

Quote

not influenced by strong feeling; especially :  not affected by personal or emotional involvement

Based on this definition, please re-read what I wrote in its full and proper context.

As to your aside, I really don't know what to say to that. Are you trying to espouse incivility and suggesting that it is a proper means of getting your (not you personally, but you generally) way?

 

6 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

 When people use gay as a slur, it is wrong.  When people say, "That's gay" where they really mean, "That's bad/stupid/something I don't like," it is wrong.

Wasn't one aspect of your argument a defense of the evolution of language? The word "gay" (still) means "happy and/or jovial" (which, according to you, is now obsolete) and yet a minority group has usurped it to mean something entirely new (ie. another way to describe a homosexual, used by homosexuals, and, in fact, appears as this particular subgroups acronym). Why exactly can't the word further evolve to take on the even newer meaning of something that is "bad/stupid/something I don't like"?

 

6 hours ago, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.  It's the majority that seems to think that using "gay" in denigrating fashion is OK to do.  It's the minority of people who care about such things who are speaking up to say that it's wrong to do so.  The people who hold sway are the majority group else there might actually be social repercussions for using "gay" in a pejorative way.

Once again, you are not reading what I'm saying. As to you're last sentence, you can't possibly believe that to be true, can you? The fact that this very thread exists is evidence that there are social repercussions? Or are you espousing more severe repercussions? And if so, what exactly would you propose?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

This is certainly one "solution", but it is not the only one. Another is that: instead of looking outwards, people looked at themselves and addressed their own biases, insecurities, faults. As opposed to projecting our insecurities, or imposing our perceived offenses on others, we instead worked to better ourselves, a lot of these issues would disappear.

You mean people look inwards and stop using "gay" as a slur/pejorative?  That would be great.  I don't see it happening without some sort of outside influence or social cost.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

There is a serious disconnect with your example. 50 years ago, black and white people could get married to each other.

Not until Loving v. Virginia, which was 50 years ago.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

There is another serious disconnect here. The example you are providing would seem to indicate that equal rights is a zero-sum game. So which is it? Because if really mean that equal rights is not a zero-sum game, then we are in agreement.

Um, what?  That expanded rights for one group does not mean less rights for another group means that it's not a zero-sum game.  I'm not sure we agree since I'm not you understand what zero-sum is.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

I think you may not full understand what "banning" entails. A ban is defined as an official or legal prohibition. So you are,quite literally, taking away an individuals rights to say or do something by imposing a ban on that word, phrase or action.

No one has ever had a right to say whatever they want free from criticism.  Additionally, no one has ever had a right to force others to provide a platform for their speech.  So, no, no rights are taken away.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Once again, that is not what I'm saying. Let me reiterate: "The crux of those who claim to be tolerant is that they are [tolerant] insofar as you agree with their point of view. If you don't, then you must change your worldview to accommodate them [ie. those who claim to be tolerant] or you are the one who is intolerant. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy."

You can repeat yourself, but it doesn't change anything.  Being tolerant does not require one to allow intolerance.  That is a contradiction, and it's not hypocrisy to not be in contradiction.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

But you aren't pointing out that people have different experiences. You are stating that white people do not have to deal with institutional racism (which, if I understand correctly, refers to racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions). I'm stating that this is patently false, and is a racist remark in and of itself. It appears you are speaking about U.S. society in particular. The problem is, U.S. "society" is not monolithic either. There exist, within U.S. society, pockets of social institutions that are racist against whites. As I stated before, to say otherwise is either incredibly naive, or intentionally dishonest.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  White people do not have to deal with institutional racism.  White people do not have to deal with racism in this country at all, because there is no racism against white people.  If you do not think I am correct, then please provide examples.  Before you do, however, you may want to actually make sure you understand "zero-sum" and also what racism is (especially in an institutional sense).  Here's a good article I just found:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/racism-vs-whites-youre-kidding-me

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

There is a flaw with this example. You are comparing a deeply intimate relationship between 2 people and extrapolating that to a far less intimate racial (or gender based) classification. Two random black people can meet up, not know each other at all, and casually throw around the n-word without consequence. Likewise, two gay individuals who also do not know each other at all can do the same with the word "gay". Once someone who is not part of that group attempts to do the same, all hell breaks loose. Why? Does the colour of my skin, or my gender preference suddenly change the meaning of the word?

But, that's the whole point. It's about relationship to the other person and shared experiences.  I brought it to the idea of a SO, because I wanted an example you could relate to, without knowing your background.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Re-read what I said. The classification of something as "trivial" or "the correct" way is what is subjective. In essence, you are saying that my use of the word is less correct than your use of it.

Except you claim that the definition of "happy" or "jovial" was the correct definition.  Which, I should also point out, ignores the fact that it is no longer in common usage, if at all.  That's the point any time someone tries to make that argument.  No one still uses it that way.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

For your benefit, I'm going to post the definition of dispassionate (because, based on your response, I don't believe you understand what it means):

I understand what it means.  I am not dispassionate about this subject and it does not invalidate my arguments to be that way.

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

As to your aside, I really don't know what to say to that. Are you trying to espouse incivility and suggesting that it is a proper means of getting your (not you personally, but you generally) way?

Civility is in the eye of the beholder as well.  What the majority sees as uncivil is often no more than questioning the way things are done.  The only way to be civil in the eyes of people who hold power is often to sit down and shut up.  No civil rights movement has ever made progress by doing that.  So, if that means one should be uncivil, then so be it - so long as the people in power get to decide what is or is not civil.

Here's the rub though.  I think that people would say I'v being uncivil by telling them they should not say "gay" in a pejorative way.  Who am I to rock the boat, right?  Yet, I see the use of "gay" in a pejorative way as what is really uncivil.  So, take your pick, right?

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Wasn't one aspect of your argument a defense of the evolution of language? The word "gay" (still) means "happy and/or jovial" (which, according to you, is now obsolete) and yet a minority group has usurped it to mean something entirely new (ie. another way to describe a homosexual, used by homosexuals, and, in fact, appears as this particular subgroups acronym). Why exactly can't the word further evolve to take on the even newer meaning of something that is "bad/stupid/something I don't like"?

It can and has.  We should fight back against it, however, because it's derogatory.  Same as how we fight against the use of the N-word (in a pejorative sense) due to its derogatory nature.  How would you like it if every time something bad happened, people described it as being Cephy?

23 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Once again, you are not reading what I'm saying. As to you're last sentence, you can't possibly believe that to be true, can you? The fact that this very thread exists is evidence that there are social repercussions? Or are you espousing more severe repercussions? And if so, what exactly would you propose?

Generally there are not social repercussions.  That DE has taken steps is laudable, but only comprises a small part of the social sphere.  So, sometimes there are social consequences, a very small amount of the time.  It's not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're fine with Kickbot censoring out the N-word (you are, aren't you?) then why not those other words?

Im not fine with it censoring any word, if I dont have the chat filter on.

DE has a chat filter for a reason. Until the time that DE doesnt have a chat filter, all arguments against banning people for using specific words is, in my opinion, wrong.

Even Spiral Knights, a childrens game, has allowed the word gay.

Language changes, from gay meaning happy, to gay meaning homosexual, to gay meaning somethings crap. Either ban all words, or ban none of them.

 

In an adults game, mature language has its place. Abuse can be reported already. There is a language filter. If someone is routinely trying to get past the filter, report them, with a decent filter in place you shouldnt see people who want to use adult language. I want to swear and I want to see swearing. Im getting sick of being told that because I like to use adult language that I am basically some degenerate of society. Im appealed by some of the attitudes on this thread:  

-blanket bans

-suppression of speech regarding anything outside the games realms

-controlling what a particular word means

 

Whats next? Controlling swear words down the mic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be my final post on this thread, for reasons that should be apparent shortly.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Not until Loving v. Virginia, which was 50 years ago.

Thank you for providing the legal precedent, but that does not change anything I've said. 

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Um, what?  That expanded rights for one group does not mean less rights for another group means that it's not a zero-sum game.  I'm not sure we agree since I'm not you understand what zero-sum is.

Apologies, I misread what zero-sum was. I do think that equal rights is a zero-sum game, as opposed to you. 

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

No one has ever had a right to say whatever they want free from criticism.  Additionally, no one has ever had a right to force others to provide a platform for their speech.  So, no, no rights are taken away.

To criticise is one thing. To ban is something else entirely. Please tell me you see the irony of the bolded statement. If you don't, there is nothing more to be said on the topic.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

You can repeat yourself, but it doesn't change anything.  Being tolerant does not require one to allow intolerance.  That is a contradiction, and it's not hypocrisy to not be in contradiction.

Based on the definition of "to tolerate" that I have already provided, it absolutely does require one to allow intolerance. By not allow for the opposing view point, the tolerant person them-self becomes intolerant. It is the epitome of hypocrisy. And before you say it isn't, here's the definition of hypocrisy:

Quote

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  White people do not have to deal with institutional racism.  White people do not have to deal with racism in this country at all, because there is no racism against white people.  If you do not think I am correct, then please provide examples.  Before you do, however, you may want to actually make sure you understand "zero-sum" and also what racism is (especially in an institutional sense).  Here's a good article I just found:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/racism-vs-whites-youre-kidding-me

I have defined what "institutional racism" is. Based on that definition, white people do deal with institutional racism. If you do not agree with the definition I provided, feel free to provide another one. You may not think white people face institutional racism because it is not on the same scale or scope of the perceived racism against other minorities, but that is not the issue. The crux of the issue is that white people do face racism from other races. How will a group of white people walking in Harlem, or South Central LA feel and be treated? Within my own culture/race, it is highly frowned upon to date or marry someone who is white (it does happen, but it is quite rare, and there is still a bit of stigma surrounding it, particularly among the older generations). Would that not constitute institutional racism (ignoring the matter of scale and scope)?

Thank you for the blog post. It doesn't really add much to the conversation since the bias within it cannot be overlooked. If you happen upon a more level-headed, peer-reviewed journal sociology article, please feel free to share it.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

But, that's the whole point. It's about relationship to the other person and shared experiences.  I brought it to the idea of a SO, because I wanted an example you could relate to, without knowing your background.

It is naive to think that, just because I share the same race or gender identity as another person, I have the same shared experiences. The intimacy that exists between me and my SO does not correlate to the intimacy that exists with someone who shares the same race as I do. In fact, my SO may not even share the same race as I do. Does that somehow disqualify the intimacy that we share? 

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Except you claim that the definition of "happy" or "jovial" was the correct definition.  Which, I should also point out, ignores the fact that it is no longer in common usage, if at all.  That's the point any time someone tries to make that argument.  No one still uses it that way.

No, that is not what I claim at all. What I said was that "happy" or "jovial" was a correct definition, not the correct definition. And before you say that this is a distinction without a difference, I urge you to look up the difference between definite determiners and indefinite determiners, and what the implications of using one over the other are.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

I understand what it means.  I am not dispassionate about this subject and it does not invalidate my arguments to be that way.

What it does do, however, is make it very difficult to carry on a conversation, particularly because (on more than a few occasions), you've either a) not read what I've written or b) have removed what I said from its proper context and proceeded to create a strawman which you have then attempted to knock down. If you cannot quell your emotions somewhat, in order to properly understand the argument being posed by the other party, there can be no true dialogue.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Civility is in the eye of the beholder as well.  What the majority sees as uncivil is often no more than questioning the way things are done.  The only way to be civil in the eyes of people who hold power is often to sit down and shut up.  No civil rights movement has ever made progress by doing that.  So, if that means one should be uncivil, then so be it - so long as the people in power get to decide what is or is not civil.

Here's the rub though.  I think that people would say I'v being uncivil by telling them they should not say "gay" in a pejorative way.  Who am I to rock the boat, right?  Yet, I see the use of "gay" in a pejorative way as what is really uncivil.  So, take your pick, right?

You're treading a very slippery slope here. I present you 2 contrasting "leaders" of the civil rights movement of the 60's and I would like you to tell me which was the more effective: Malcolm X or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Which of these methods do you espouse?

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

It can and has.  We should fight back against it, however, because it's derogatory.  Same as how we fight against the use of the N-word (in a pejorative sense) due to its derogatory nature.  How would you like it if every time something bad happened, people described it as being Cephy?

Why should we fight back if this is the natural evolution of the language? Simply because it is derogatory? Do you feel as passionately about other words such as "retard", or "ratchet", or "&#!"? A word is either derogatory all of the time or none of the time. When a word becomes derogatory only in special instances, then problems arise. Would it make any sense for the word "beautiful" to suddenly be taken in a pejorative sense when a full moon falls on a Tuesday, or when the Cubs are in the pennant, or any other arbitrary condition you wish to choose? Or how about its use gets restricted to only those who are "beautiful"? And if an "ugly" person begins to use it, it suddenly becomes derogatory? Or will you argue that, because you can't quantitatively define what is "beautiful" and what is "ugly" that this example is invalid? 

As for you last question, in all honesty, I would be extremely amused and would love to see how "Cephy" evolved to mean that. I mean, it did happen with Hitler, so why not me, right?

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:22 AM, (Xbox One)R3d P01nt said:

Generally there are not social repercussions.  That DE has taken steps is laudable, but only comprises a small part of the social sphere.  So, sometimes there are social consequences, a very small amount of the time.  It's not enough.

Then please tell me what is "enough". I posed some questions to you for which I'd like to see your responses. Or don't. It doesn't matter either way. I think this conversation has run its course and I want to thank you for taking the time to "speak" with me about it. I understand that this issue evokes strong emotions for you and I can appreciate that. But I do not think we'll get any further in our discussions then we have already.

Good day to you sir! :smile:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...