The Big Picture: Not Okay

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 16 NEXT
 

If Capcom had any class that bearded fat-ass would have been kicked off the show.

But, hey, this IS Capcom we're talking about.

mandalorian2298:
Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:

Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)

So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was ment for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without re-enforcement, and ignore-ant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no groundiing to make an informed search of the literature.

Diction minutiae opener: while it's not a friendly or positive term to use in any context, "rape" isn't a sexist term. It's not gender-oriented. I also don't think it'd be considered more pleasant to say you repeatedly gutted the enemy team with a your KA-BAR before shooting them in the head over and over again (being what you literally did in the game) than it is to simply say you raped them. Neither of these actions would be considered socially positive if they took place in the real world; I'm not sure I see why one is looked upon less well than the other. Yeah, I'm sure some people get upset when they hear someone say, "Dude, I totally raped him hard," but I'm betting those people would be equally upset by, say, "Dude, I totally shoved my fist through his skull and tore out his spine from the neck up" (why hello there, Mortal Kombat). How is one worse than the other, exactly? Or is the recommendation that players simply not talk about their gameplay at all?

More on topic: yeah, this kind of behavior is prevalent, and not great. One of the more "wtf" terms I recall from when I was playing various fighting games in the arcade is "Jewed." As a verb. As in, "Oh man I can't believe that super combo missed - you got so jewed!" I just had to look at the guy like, Really? Did you just say that? Was reminded of this when it came up again in a Mumble conversation while playing League of Legends a few days ago (MOBA community has an unfortunately high number of similarities to the fighting game community, mostly in the negative aspects). The speaker didn't seem to understand why I was disapproving of the usage.

Honestly though, I'd say it's more of an individual thing than a community one. In those arcade fighting groups I'd play with, maybe one or two people out of about twenty were abrasively vulgar. Likewise, that one guy in Mumble is the only one of the group who uses that kind of language. Point being, Aris' argument re: "This is the fighting game community" is bullshit. It's part of the fighting game community because those people are in it at the moment; it's not some inherent aspect of the community. The community won't be "lost" if that kind of trash talk suddenly evaporates. It's not an integral element of the thing. It's just crap. Now, I will say trash talk, as a concept, is an immutable part of that community. It's part of almost every competitive community I can think of; it's just the type of talk that changes.

Changing the type of trash talk common to the fighting game community won't change the community. It'll just make it less caustic to be around.

I haven't liked Bob in several of his movie reviews, but I continue to generally enjoy his Big Picture videos.
And he was completely right on the money regarding this subject.

castlewise:
I agree. Sexism or racism isn't defined by how you think so much as by your actions. I think if you make sexist jokes which cause women discomfort and grief then you are, by definition, sexist. Whether you think of yourself as sexist or not is a different story. Mediocre bad guys almost never think of themselves as bad guys.

On a different note: Its interesting to see how this matches up with your political correctness video. Its not that they are incompatible by any means. Its just that watching those two videos gives a sense of the sometimes narrow region in between being an ass and being politically incorrect.

I remember that episode. It was great.

On topic; why does Bob think we hate these episodes?

Oh right....a lot of us are gamers. Why must those bad stereotypes come from real places? Dark, dim, and evil places.

A few things. First off, Aris is a piece of shit who shouldn't be defended. Second off, TRASH TALK IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF NOT ONLY THE FIGHTING GAME COMMUNITY, BUT OF COMPETITIVE GAMING AS A WHOLE! I'm sure the woman involved knew that going in. Third, Aris is a piece of shit who shouldn't be defended.

The only thing I really disagreed with Bob on this one (and I disagree with him on a number of things in this show), is his assertion that "Fairness" is not "Censorship". Or rather, that the justice system punishing people for using hate-speech is not "censorship".

zehydra:
The only thing I really disagreed with Bob on this one (and I disagree with him on a number of things in this show), is his assertion that "Fairness" is not "Censorship". Or rather, that the justice system punishing people for using hate-speech is not "censorship".

But it isn't. Being punished for something you say isn't censorship; censorship prevents things from being said/heard in the first place.

Gaming has become so ubiquitous the problems its community faces mirrors the problems all of society faces. That doesn't make these issues any less important to identify and discuss, but your naturally going to get gamers to be all defensive when you label it their problem and not just a problem in society.

So what of the fighting game community? Certainly a boys club among gaming groups, but having numerous interactions with them I cannot say misogyny is part of that culture. Offensive smack talk however, is very much a part of that culture. But there is a reason for this, that tied to the competitiveness of this culture. Every time you got an idiot like this shouting their mouth off, it draws attention to the fighting game community and encourages other people to join. The sort of competitive people that want to kick the ass of that jerk and everyone in the community like them.

This is not the first time it has happen, and it probably won't be the last time. But I would be really glad to see a ton of women getting competitive in the fighting community in response to this. Like a wrestling villain, these jerks are destined to lose to more intelligent and empathetic individuals, and it is usually at the hands of the people they try to offend. I would wager that is what the majority of the fighting game community would like to see. It has happened before after all, make it happen again.

Shjade:

zehydra:
The only thing I really disagreed with Bob on this one (and I disagree with him on a number of things in this show), is his assertion that "Fairness" is not "Censorship". Or rather, that the justice system punishing people for using hate-speech is not "censorship".

But it isn't. Being punished for something you say isn't censorship; censorship prevents things from being said/heard in the first place.

Which is exactly what the threat of punishment does.
If you can't say something for fear of being punished by law, then it's censorship.

Some will disagree with me on this, but we have laws and punishment not for justice, but to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

I'd think it would be cool to have more girl gamers online to compete with. They're tough as crap to play against I would know (one of my Xbox live friends is a girl and she invites me now and then to Call of Duty matches like Infected.. tough cookie indeed.) *Ahem* Anyhow I feel very strongly about how people use freedom of speech.

I always hear the quote "I may disagree with you, but I would die to defend your freedom of speech" yet people always disagree to such an extent where they shun other's opinions or call them out in hostility. Opinions are opinions, but least debate and express your ideals rather then bashing someone.

Now, for those who feel it's okay to be sexist and to justify this by bringing a game in as an example- that's pretty bad despite what I said about opinions being opinions. Just know that the more you misuse freedom of speech, the harder it is to defend your case against others who also can use freedom of speech.

GaltarDude1138:
I don't dig out this clip often, but when I do...

We are Jamaica, we have a bobsled team~

Anyway, hats off to you Bob. I enjoy a lot of TF2 myself, and as a female it can get frustrating at times. If I join a new server and use my mic, I'm bound to see about 5 friend invites when I log off. And if it's not creepers it's little 12 year olds telling me to suck their dick or get in the kitchen. It's not even original or amusing, it's just mindless grieving, and the only reason it's allowed to go on is there are enough who either remain passive or neutral to validate it.

Akio91:
A few things. First off, Aris is a piece of shit who shouldn't be defended. Second off, TRASH TALK IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF NOT ONLY THE FIGHTING GAME COMMUNITY, BUT OF COMPETITIVE GAMING AS A WHOLE! I'm sure the woman involved knew that going in. Third, Aris is a piece of shit who shouldn't be defended.

Lol what? How old are you? Are you trying to troll or something?

This is talking about the same community that has the game Leisure Suit Larry. Overall I do agree. The guy that the first half of the video was about was simply using a scapegoat to justify actions which really can't be justified. On top of scaring away potential female gamers from games and being proud of being a member of the 'group,' it also gives us all a bad black eye. It really helps justify the opinions of the opponents of games. The section who believe that kind of behavior is small but gets a lot of newstime. Just like the same thing happening in the rest of media and similar things.

But at the same time I don't like the double standard that exists for many remarks. You mentioned casual racism and sexism, but those exist on both sides of the fence. It just gets viewed differently. Now that comes from a large cultural difference not only between races, but genders. But it's still there. Like the fact a woman can say 'all men are pigs' without problems and normally are meant with agreement; but if a man were to say 'all women are sluts' which is essence the same thing (considering an entire gender as being focused on sexual actions, either leering or otherwise) then at best they're considered sexist. At worst they're sued. The same thing goes for racial tensions.

The common excuse for that is 'well this gender/race was oppressed for so long' or 'they still face negitive views they don't deserve.' That's true. But at the same time you can't really say we live in a truely equal society when there's still a large gap between what's acceptable for the two groups. There are racists in every race, and sexists in both genders. It isn't something exclusive to one group. Now should it be more acceptable for one group over another? I don't think so, but I can understand why it is.

Don't get me wrong. The slurs are stupid no matter where or who they come from. And in the gaming community, where these kinds of things happen often (though it mostly seems to be younger players or 'swearing teens' from my experiences), it's an issue that we really do need to address. But keeping that double standard in mind is important.

mandalorian2298:
Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

You realize that stating that you're a professor of philosophy at the outset of your post is at best a non sequitur, and is likely to be construed as an argument ad hominem that your opinion is correct. I submit to you, sir, that your supposed disclaimer is itself an attempt to bait people. ;p

mandalorian2298:

The mistake I am talking about is:

Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you

How are you using the term 'objective'? The proposition "so-and-so holds such-and-such opinion" could very well be considered objectively true if it is a publicly accessible fact that the person in question holds the opinion in question. And what is a subjective opinion? Aren't opinions subjective by definition? If I believe that the moral truth is best expressed by Kant's Categorical Imperative, is that a subjective opinion?

Are you alluding to the descriptive/normative distinction? The descriptive fact that someone holds an opinion does not mean that said person should hold that opinion or that the rule expressed by the opinion has prescriptive force. Unless, of course, one accepts a version of moral relativism. But I frankly don't understand the point of moral relativism; why not just commit to moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism at that point?

mandalorian2298:

So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

If everyone became Nietzscheans we wouldn't have this problem. Largely because everyone would realize that the very thought of an objective moral truth is absurd.

mandalorian2298:

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths: (snip)

I vaguely recall them telling us as much when I was in kindergarten. If it didn't sink in then, there isn't much chance of it happening now. I find it hilarious that we don't teach any courses on logic or critical thinking until college. Doesn't that just say it all?

mandalorian2298:

4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

Couldn't have said it better myself. Society won't become better by conditioning people to whine and cry at the slightest offense. What you'll get is a society of whimpering idiots who think it is an act of violence to question someone's beliefs. People need to grow a thicker skin and a sense of humor.

zehydra:

Shjade:

zehydra:
The only thing I really disagreed with Bob on this one (and I disagree with him on a number of things in this show), is his assertion that "Fairness" is not "Censorship". Or rather, that the justice system punishing people for using hate-speech is not "censorship".

But it isn't. Being punished for something you say isn't censorship; censorship prevents things from being said/heard in the first place.

Which is exactly what the threat of punishment does.
If you can't say something for fear of being punished by law, then it's censorship.

Some will disagree with me on this, but we have laws and punishment not for justice, but to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

Discouragement != censorship. Yeah, laws and consequences for breaking them are intended to discourage criminal activity, but when that criminal activity happens anyway, what follows? Punishment applicable to the action. Whatever happened still happened.

Likewise, if you say some horrific offensive harmful thing and get punished for it, you haven't been censored. Whatever you said is still out there, particularly if it was written rather than spoken. It isn't blacked out or removed (unless there's a legal obligation to do so - libel etc.). No censorship took place.

If you really want to keep going with the comparison to crime, I'd liken censorship to a physical barricade that literally denies you the ability to break into someone's home to steal from them, rather than the penalty for breaking in and stealing things. You flat out can't do it, regardless of what the consequences might be if you could.

Sounds as if you were holding back on not yelling near the end there.

I don't quite understand the obsession with homosexuality and the desire to put it into every part of every media these days. Just because it's becoming an acknowledged part of society doesn't mean that it has to be shoe-horned into everything.

I don't hate homosexuals and I believe in equal rights but I find the act of homosexuality to be disgusting and repulsive and I don't like how mass media is shoving it in our faces. (Then again I don't like it when they show it with different genders either.)

I'm not sure if everyone (media) is just trying to be more 'in-depth', 'cutting edge' or 'thumb on the pulse of society' or if they all think that this is a cause that isn't being championed enough.

Once this is no longer such an issue I'd like these people to bring other issues that plague our nation such as poverty and crime and disease and maybe address those perhaps just as reverently.

It of course won't happen because those things don't do one thing that homosexuality does and that is be controversial. When it comes down to it people (media) wants things to sell and the best way to do that is to back something that is controversial regardless of how it is that way to begin with.

Thank god for you, Bob. This is your best video yet! I can really relate, since, as a homosexual, hearing "OMG fag, go get butt-fucked!" as a common term for "Damn it, I died," in Call of Duty certainly doesn't sit well with me. In fact, I think I might go eye for an eye one of these days. Fucking dick, go slap your girlfriend's tits! Yeah, how does that feel, random Call of Duty player?

canadamus_prime:
Just because it's common doesn't mean it's any less wrong

I cannot agree with this more. If everyone suddenly started breaking into houses and setting them on fire it wouldn't make it any less wrong.

Popularity =/= Justification for ___ism

sapphireofthesea:

mandalorian2298:
Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings. (Snip)

Mr. Psychology professor.

See above.

sapphireofthesea:

I am aware that this was meant for the non-science non-philosophical crowd.

Fixed.

sapphireofthesea:

However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

By it's very nature ethics is an a priori pursuit, so empirical data can't really serve as evidence like it does in the physical sciences. To demonstrate this one need only consider these two questions:

If we found that the majority of people in the middle ages thought homosexuality was wrong, does that make homosexuality wrong? If so, does homosexuality become permissible the moment the majority of people think it is permissible?

sapphireofthesea:

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without re-enforcement, and ignorant of the possibility of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal.

Come again?

sapphireofthesea:
I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

Psychologists don't study right and wrong, they study the human mind. I imagine that morality, qua psychological/sociological phenomenon, is a very problematic concept for psychologists. But that's more a reflection of the complexity of human behavior than moral truth.

If only we had some kind of rule named after a geek icon that told us how to behave in situations like competitive gaming.

Great video Bob, keep calling out these troglodytes who need to be brought into the twenty-first century.

People can throw around dictionary definitions and technicalities of the term, "rape" all day but it won't change the reason and meaning behind why the cruder gamers actually use the term so casually.

It's all meant and rooted as a reference to homosexual slurs or sexist slurs implying their foe is gay or a woman and therefore inferior.

None of the people who willfully want to think or explain their way around it otherwise will change that.

As for the sexist discussion it pains me to see that there are sectors of the fighting community that never saw this as a big deal, or even went right to victim blaming. It really is a big issue and it's not going to change by hoping people will grow out of it.

I would suggest that we all just stop being offended by words, and turn our collective heads towards more important things, but noone wants to hear that.

I'm sick of political correctness, and this is part why. At least if everyone speaks their mind, we know who we are really dealing with. Does anyone think sexism or homophobia would disappear if it was universally shunned upon in the gaming community?

I don't. We would just not see it anymore. Let them run free and get exposed for the horrible idiots that they are. We, in turn, can then decide how to treat them.

I agree with 99.9% of what bob said and showed there, sexsim is equal to racism and homophobia. It is a simple fact that many people struggle to comprehend.

That said, the Waterbuffalo's image, to me brought up the idea of the "boys club" And in that respect I disagree, men AND women, by our very nature ( im talking straight men and women here, though gay people I guarantee do that same thing) are going to objectify the opposite sex. That is we find the other gender attractive and we need to have social outlets where we can allow that objectification take place...... AND NO IM NOT BEING SEXIST HERE Women have the same right and same desire get together and talk about David Beckham and Brad Pitt ( those are examples)and what "depraved" things they would like to do to them, THE SAME WAY us guys want to objectify Angelina Jolie or Posh Spice.

Now, what this street fighter guy did was completely inexcusable and he should be called out for it. Same with Rush Limbaugh and his calling a woman trying to get her health concerns addressed a slutty prostitute. Things like that ARE WRONG. Trying to exert ones superiority over others on moral grounds ( excluding the denouncing of murder, rape etc....) or for sexual reasons like this is, horrible. But we still do need outlets where we can safely discuss our attraction to the opposite sex in what would normally be considered impolite, But it should remain amongst a circle of friends and should never reach a public forum like what Bob was addressing here,.

Basically men need to objectify women women need to objectify men, because we need to have sexual partners for the purpose of propagating the species, and it is healthy for that to happen amongst a select group of people.

Awexsome:
People can throw around dictionary definitions and technicalities of the term, "rape" all day but it won't change the reason and meaning behind why the cruder gamers actually use the term so casually.

It's all meant and rooted as a reference to homosexual slurs or sexist slurs implying their foe is gay or a woman and therefore inferior.

None of the people who willfully want to think or explain their way around it otherwise will change that.

As for the sexist discussion it pains me to see that there are sectors of the fighting community that never saw this as a big deal, or even went right to victim blaming. It really is a big issue and it's not going to change by hoping people will grow out of it.

Or y'know, it implies that they were raped, which could happen to anybody and happens because of being overpowered and degraded regardless of sex or orientation. Doesn't it seem to make a lot more sense that people say "yah got raped" because they are trying to insult and degrade you and people who've been raped have suffered traumatic events at the hands of someone who overpowered and wrecked them as a person?

What, this episode again?

him over there:

Awexsome:
People can throw around dictionary definitions and technicalities of the term, "rape" all day but it won't change the reason and meaning behind why the cruder gamers actually use the term so casually.

It's all meant and rooted as a reference to homosexual slurs or sexist slurs implying their foe is gay or a woman and therefore inferior.

Or y'know, it implies that they were raped, which could happen to anybody and happens because of being overpowered and degraded regardless of sex or orientation. Doesn't it seem to make a lot more sense that people say "yah got raped" because they are trying to insult and degrade you and people who've been raped have suffered traumatic events at the hands of someone who overpowered and wrecked them as a person?

Pretty much this. While I can understand the interpretation of that term being used to imply homosexuality, if you stop to think about that for two seconds it wouldn't make any sense. See, rape takes two people, so if Guy A says to Guy B, "Yeah, get raped!" as a way to indicate Guy B is gay (and therefore inferior, according to Awexsome's line of reasoning), it actually identifies Guy A as the more likely candidate for that label given he's the one initiating the sexual encounter, as it were.

It makes no sense to think of it that way is what I'm saying.

It's just a crude way to assert dominance more than linking to any specific gender/sexuality issue, like most trash talk, really.

Rape isn't really gender/sexually specific so I don't think that has anything to do with nerd sexism although it may be an offensive word over all.

So are a whhhooollee lot of words used in smack talk and trashtalking and in competitive games slandering your opponent is just there. You don't know your opponent is a woman, nor do you care, you're taunting them over defeat over what was no doubt a challenging game, and you respect them for providing you with that.

And them, being competitive players as well, also understand this mutual respect through exchange of slander. I agree that that is part of competitive gaming that will not go.

I understand your position but I reserve my right to say "gg noobs get raped" when pwning some scrubs online.

Good video rock on brother yeaa

Daystar Clarion:

The amount of crap I get from guys who think I'm a girl is astounding, especially when I whoop their arses.

To be fair, you only whoop them because you're a dude, as women are terrible at fighting games.

*runs*

That said, it doesn't seem to be fighting game specific. This was videod, so it got fairly widespread attention, and it was a pretty severe case, but it's hardly exclusive.

SteelStallion:

I understand your position but I reserve my right to say "gg noobs get raped" when pwning some scrubs online.

And I reserve my rights to report you to the proper authorities and/or kick you off my server. That isn't acceptable behavior, and it is sexist.

Shjade:

zehydra:

Shjade:

But it isn't. Being punished for something you say isn't censorship; censorship prevents things from being said/heard in the first place.

Which is exactly what the threat of punishment does.
If you can't say something for fear of being punished by law, then it's censorship.

Some will disagree with me on this, but we have laws and punishment not for justice, but to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

Discouragement != censorship. Yeah, laws and consequences for breaking them are intended to discourage criminal activity, but when that criminal activity happens anyway, what follows? Punishment applicable to the action. Whatever happened still happened.

Likewise, if you say some horrific offensive harmful thing and get punished for it, you haven't been censored. Whatever you said is still out there, particularly if it was written rather than spoken. It isn't blacked out or removed (unless there's a legal obligation to do so - libel etc.). No censorship took place.

If you really want to keep going with the comparison to crime, I'd liken censorship to a physical barricade that literally denies you the ability to break into someone's home to steal from them, rather than the penalty for breaking in and stealing things. You flat out can't do it, regardless of what the consequences might be if you could.

This is completely ludicrous. You have an absurdly narrow definition of censorship. If the government had a law against criticizing the government and put people who criticized the government in prison it would most definitely be a form of censorship, even if they left what the person said alone. Even if you were able to prove that it wasn't censorship, that would only be an argument from the definition of a term and wouldn't accomplish anything. It would still be the case that arresting people for saying things that are offensive but not immediately harmful, whatever you want to call it (Censorship #2), would still be impermissible.

There is only one exception to the first amendment: shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Aside from slander and threats, the only speech that isn't protected is speech that immediately leads to harmful results. You can even say, "let's burn down the government, they're all a bunch of crooks!", as long as you don't say "let's burn down the such-and-such building on July 27th using a homemade bomb. We'll meet at 7:00 am sharp at the corner of such-and-such."

But racial slurs and other bigoted remarks don't even come close to fitting in that category. I hate to break it to you, but something that hurts someone's feelings isn't harmful enough to warrant any sort of legal action. If you slander a person by making specific false claims about them, or threaten them, then sure, they can take legal action against you. But calling someone a name doesn't warrant jack squat.

Where would it stop? Maybe I find particular religious organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church to say incredibly hurtful things that harm me psychologically, well... guess we should go arrest them for expressing their religious beliefs! Why stop there? Clearly their entire religious organization is focused on spreading hatred and is therefore harmful to society. Better call in SWAT and Waco their asses.

You know, I normally laugh when I hear people like Glen Beck call liberals fascists. Clearly Beck is a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. But then I remember that there are actually liberals out there who want to crap all over the first amendment just to make sure some people's feelings don't get hurt. I'm telling you right now, even if calling people a nasty name sometimes makes them commit suicide, it still wouldn't be enough to turn over the rights given to us by the first amendment. Sure, it would be tragic, but we can't outlaw certain words anymore than we could outlaw cars because people might drink and drive.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin.

miloram:

SteelStallion:

I understand your position but I reserve my right to say "gg noobs get raped" when pwning some scrubs online.

And I reserve my rights to report you to the proper authorities and/or kick you off my server. That isn't acceptable behavior, and it is sexist.

how is it sexist in the slightest? maybe you're sexist to assume rape is gender specific. and you don't dictate what is, and isn't acceptable behavior in a certain online environment, nor is it your server lol.

Um, okay how is the word rape now sexism? Its not really implying any gender is inferior or anything.

Callate:
But where I get nervous is where Bob seems to be saying that there is no private place for attitudes or ideas that the general public finds offensive, only the public sphere where it comes right out of the gate to get immediately pelted with fruit for its intrinsic wrongness.

...

But I don't see the harm of Mac users quietly echoing to each other the superiority of users of their chosen platform, or "furries" sharing fantasies with one another, to give two examples (neither of which include me), despite the fact that expression of those ideas in the public sphere might get those who express them treated with derision and disgust.

I see the problem with expressing a bad attitude in public as though the public should accept and mainstream that attitude. I'm concerned with that form of indignation, however righteous, being carried over into areas where people who may recognize their attitudes and ideas are "niche" want to share them with each other.

Volf:
My thoughts exactly, a person should have the right to express unpopular opinions in a private setting.

...people should have a right to express themselves freely in a private environment.

I always wonder about posting replies to comments from pages ago, but I have something to say, so... well here it goes.

I don't dispute that people should be allowed to express any opinion, no matter how unpopular, from a view that the the Star Wars prequels are better than the original trilogy to an opinion that the rightful place of a woman is in the kitchen, generally any time they wish, but certainly in a private place, such as a user group or one's own home. However, I don't think Bob was suggesting that this shouldn't be the case. First of all, Bob was responding to an attitude people display more than the actual opinions they hold, which is a whole different thing, though not irrelevant. Second, he wasn't suggesting that we should be going "thought police" on people we disagree with. Rather, he was suggesting that we stop normalizing views that we have good reason to think are wrong (and are morally significant, such as in the case of racism, as opposed to a preference about Star Wars) and, as another point, that we should stop tolerating harmful attitudes and behaviors, like the casual use of racial slurs and the word "rape." This isn't to say that those who feel differently or who have unpopular opinions shouldn't be allowed to express themselves, but instead that we should react appropriately to them when they do - that is to say, with disapproval. His point, to put it another way, is that if we can agree that calling your opponent homophobic slurs over a match of CoD is ignorant and hurtful, then we are justified in expressing our disapproval of such behavior and should, in fact, discourage it when we can. That doesn't violate someone's right to free speech, and I agree with him about this; it's the proper way to go about encouraging what we think is right and discouraging what we think is wrong.

And in more direct response to Callate's post, Bob was talking about a very specific genus of actions, attitudes, and behaviors - those that are offensive and otherwise harmful to others, as in the case of racial, sexual, or gender-related slurs, or the casual inclusion of rape in humorous contexts. Now, I may not precisely agree with Bob about what kind of things are "harmful" (I love off color jokes as much as the next guy), but I can certainly get with the spirit of his sentiment. He's making a claim about some category of things being wrong and saying we should discourage them, not suggesting that whatever society deems offensive should be discouraged. This means that Bob does not intend to include furries and Mac elitists in the group of people he is criticizing here.

Just once I'd like to see someone stand up for sexism going the other way around.
Having grown up in a time where women are the superior gender and are to be treated as such, I'm way beyond tired of these kinds of rants.

I'm sorry, I truly am, for the women who still get treated horribly in public, at home, at the workplace and on teh intarwebs.

But I don't feel there's a need to confront this subject more than so many others, especially when the incident that sparked this rant was in person and not through the net/online. I find the concept of boothbabes more offensive than someone being a dick. There's your discrimination, if anywhere.

In all the years I've played MMO's, there has been a lot of tension between genders and there is definately a lot of sexual harrasment going around, but my experience on the matter is that this mostly happens when the woman/girl in question is playing on her gender, more than someone throwing a random comment at that person because of her gender.
I have seen female lootwhores, pardon the expression, more vile and disgusting than anyone else in these games. Girls who'll tease guildleaders and raidleaders with the promise of something more than they'll ever get, for an edge on pixels.

I had a girlfriend who played World of Warcraft with me and she had some fairly poor behaviour as well, expecting me to protect her and take her side when she was clearly at fault or being a poor human being. It was disgusting. It was everything I loathed about people online and the girl that I loved was being a troll and an irresponsible member of a collective and her gender made it that much worse. *I* was getting heat over it, not because people felt I was responsible for what she did, but because I didn't stand up for her when I thought she was wrong, because people felt I should, merely because of our relationship and her gender.
That's seriously not okay(and none of others business).

For a long, long time I treated women and girls as something special, believing them to be our betters and I did it for the wrong reasons. Not because I wanted something personally, but like I said, because I grew up like that; I believed women to be weaker and entitled.
Many feel that way, especially people born in the 70's/80's and don't know the difference of treating women as something special and as human beings.

I'm not saying Bob doesn't know this or has the same influence, but I feel that it's an issue overblown especially when he doesn't have the time to be part of an ongoing online community as intensive as an MMO and see the facts for himself.

To sum it up, there are some bad apples out there and we're giving them way too much attention for the things they do. "Ignore the troll" is an effective advice. All this video has done is give this Aris guy more attention and traffic.

Shjade:
Diction minutiae opener: while it's not a friendly or positive term to use in any context, "rape" isn't a sexist term. It's not gender-oriented. I also don't think it'd be considered more pleasant to say you repeatedly gutted the enemy team with a your KA-BAR before shooting them in the head over and over again (being what you literally did in the game) than it is to simply say you raped them. Neither of these actions would be considered socially positive if they took place in the real world; I'm not sure I see why one is looked upon less well than the other. Yeah, I'm sure some people get upset when they hear someone say, "Dude, I totally raped him hard," but I'm betting those people would be equally upset by, say, "Dude, I totally shoved my fist through his skull and tore out his spine from the neck up" (why hello there, Mortal Kombat). How is one worse than the other, exactly? Or is the recommendation that players simply not talk about their gameplay at all?

My thoughts exactly, although this is only a tiny portion of Bobs rant, it struck me as odd.
But here's the ironic bit... people who are offended by the word "rape", usually imagine a woman being violated and is inadvertently being sexist because they assume it's a weak woman being subjected to unimaginable violence and violation.

The excuse is of course, that it lessens the value of the word and while that might be the intent, it's not the whole drive or feeling behind it, since the same people are not taking rape as seriously when it comes to men.

At the same time, men are being overvalued and people expect us to be strong in all situations even if some are not, and believe me, they are thought less of than any woman. Of course, no one is talking about that. The irony is staggering.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here