Page 6 of 8

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:57 pm
by Telen
zabis wrote:@Telen I am offended by "typical 'merican' male" BANHAMMER TELEN!!!
Point proved. Don't allow racist slurs in game.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:00 pm
by SeaTerror
Telen wrote:
SeaTerror wrote:
You have some of the worst reading comprehension I have seen in a while. All I said was that "It has an open definition"

You seem to be under the assumption that i'm pro-:| or something?

You'll have to explain that bizarre rationale to me.
Its not an open definition at all. The same as what words people find offensive is not an open definition.
Thats the defence that sickos use. She was drunk. She was wearing certain clothing. 'They' shouldnt be offended its just a word.
It absolutely is an open definition. That's how colloquial english works and that's why the definitions of words get changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Also: I don't know the excuses that "sickos" use. You seem to be well versed in them however. You cited examples too? Speaking from experience?

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:02 pm
by SeaTerror
zabis wrote:@Telen I am offended by "typical 'merican' male" BANHAMMER TELEN!!!
A post from you that didn't contain the words "Order trash" I'm surprised. Didn't think you had it in you.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:05 pm
by Telen
SeaTerror wrote: It absolutely is an open definition. That's how colloquial english works and that's why the definitions of words get changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Also: I don't know the definitions that "sickos" use. You seem to be well versed in them however. You cited examples too? Speaking from experience?
No a member of my family was raped.

Also my girlfriend is black so I find that word offensive.

I also have a problem with people that want to muddy the waters. As a white male you have no right to say what others should find acceptable if it is totally out of your personal experience.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:09 pm
by Azarael
None of these have actually changed the definition of racism.

On "white privilege": This buzzphrase is widely hated (and rightly so, because of tumblr) but, at its core, if white and black people are treated differently in situations where race should not matter, it's racism and perfectly within the existing definition.

On microaggression theory: The article states "unintended discrimination", so we can safely ignore it. Unintentional discrimination and naming yourself "xXHitler420Xx" or something similar are totally opposites. I'm sure only tumblrites and radfems call others sexist for using generic "he" in constructions anyway.

On critical race theory: Again, not changing the definition of racism. Their claims may or may not be true, but the fundamental idea is that American society is discriminatory against non-whites, which, if proven, would be racism.

However, I take your point that the idea of combating racism means different things today than it did, say, ten years ago. We're not looking at taking things to extremes. Keeping slurs and similar offensive words (Hitler, etc) out of chat and out of names will do.
Telen wrote:As a white male you have no right to say
You're going to get destroyed for this and rightly so.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:12 pm
by Orcpacolypse
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"

That's why I think it's best to tackle these type of handles in RoR anyway. I prefer to be part of a community that isn't the same old bollocks you see when you look at the scoreboard in Battlefield 4, or a Call of Duty game.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:15 pm
by Telen
Azarael wrote: You're going to get destroyed for this and rightly so.
You can't tell people what they should be offended by if you have no experience of their situation.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:18 pm
by Azarael
I prefer to see the point argued, rather than "You're not entitled to an opinion because you're a cis heterosexual white Christian male". If someone is talking crap, it should be easy enough to demolish without resorting to that.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:21 pm
by SeaTerror
Telen wrote:
SeaTerror wrote: It absolutely is an open definition. That's how colloquial english works and that's why the definitions of words get changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Also: I don't know the definitions that "sickos" use. You seem to be well versed in them however. You cited examples too? Speaking from experience?
No a member of my family was raped.

Also my girlfriend is black so I find that word offensive.

I also have a problem with people that want to muddy the waters. As a white male you have no right to say what others should find acceptable if it is totally out of your personal experience.
You make the assumption that I'm white and male based on what exactly? That's kind of racist and sexist at the same time. if you think about it.

Re: kids at play

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:29 pm
by Zealote
I'm a bit lost on what you originally meant SeaTerror - was it that you think people should be able to name their toons anything and there shouldn't be any regulation at all?
Azarael wrote:I prefer to see the point argued, rather than "You're not entitled to an opinion because you're a cis heterosexual white Christian male". If someone is talking crap, it should be easy enough to demolish without resorting to that.
I don't agree with the sentence enclosed in quotes either, however, that's not how I interpreted Telen's post. He/she seemed to be saying that as a member of one group (white male), you have no right to decide what another group 'should' or should not find offensive. That's completely different to prejudice and/or discrimination against white, cisgender, hetero, middle class (etc etc) males.