Jdsizzleslice wrote:And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
actually being called a fag should only hurt if you are homophobic
for everyone else it's "yeah, so, what's the big deal ?"
Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Jdsizzleslice wrote:And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
greenoaks wrote:Jdsizzleslice wrote:And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
actually being called a fag should only hurt if you are homophobic
for everyone else it's "yeah, so, what's the big deal ?"
afroaction wrote:Well if you're referring Generalrisk's sexual preference, Renew should of called him a goat Fuckker!
greenoaks wrote:Jdsizzleslice wrote:And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
actually being called a fag should only hurt if you are homophobic
for everyone else it's "yeah, so, what's the big deal ?"
lynch5762 wrote:greenoaks wrote:Jdsizzleslice wrote:And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
actually being called a fag should only hurt if you are homophobic
for everyone else it's "yeah, so, what's the big deal ?"
So what are you saying??
Metsfanmax wrote:agentcom wrote:I'm sorry but I don't think retarded is a bigoted word. It's a word that was used dispassionately to refer to ... well ... retarded people before a bunch of kids started calling each other that name on the playground. Now some people prefer "mentally handicapped" or whatever polysyllabic variation carries the day. Saying retard is bigoted is like saying moron, or imbecile is bigoted. Just because some people have appropriated a word like this and used it as an insult does not make it bigotry.
Well, the "mentally handicapped" community generally finds the word deeply offensive when used in this way, and that's the ultimate litmus test for determining whether we should consider it bigotry or not.
cowboyz wrote:
Not necessarily. Fag is pretty much the equivalent of calling someone retarded in school kid terms. Has nothing to do with one's sexual preference.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.
agentcom wrote:I hardly think being offended should be the "ultimate litmus test." Lots of people are offended by rape jokes. That makes them in bad taste, it doesn't make them bigotry. Same with the big "c-word." Please don't suggest that being offended is what is how we decide whether something is bigotry.
Second, is the retarded "community" really offended by this or just their parents? I have a feeling it's the latter.
To contrast, I don't think that anyone that I've ever heard say "retard" actually has any sort of animosity toward retarded people.
Funkyterrance wrote:I'm somewhat surprised at this ruling...
GeneralRisk was baiting at the very least and his opponent just chose the "wrong" offensive term as retaliation, thus falling into a trap. Is this really how a situation is going to be handled, not considering circumstances in the least but simply warning one player for using a "more punishable" slur than the other? I happen to find the first slur more offensive and there is zero difference between the two as far as viability is concerned. A slur is a slur and I think the site needs to update its policies regarding them so as to not appear so dated and biased.
Metsfanmax wrote:agentcom wrote:I hardly think being offended should be the "ultimate litmus test." Lots of people are offended by rape jokes. That makes them in bad taste, it doesn't make them bigotry. Same with the big "c-word." Please don't suggest that being offended is what is how we decide whether something is bigotry.
It's bigotry if it's offensive and it targets a specific group. The R-word satisfies both of them. The fact that it targets a specific group should have gone without saying, and I'm surprised that you felt it necessary to point out.Second, is the retarded "community" really offended by this or just their parents? I have a feeling it's the latter.
I really think you should be careful with what you're saying here. It suggests that the community is just a bunch of incompetent children, which could hardly be farther from the truth. Many such people are self-sufficient adults, and the idea of being mentally handicapped doesn't just mean someone who is completely unable to form intelligible thoughts.
See this news article if you think this is not an important issue in the community.To contrast, I don't think that anyone that I've ever heard say "retard" actually has any sort of animosity toward retarded people.
It's not just animosity that we have to be vigilant against. It's also treating such people as inferior or second-class humans.
agentcom wrote:You make excellent points on all three counts. I have terribly mixed feelings about how we handle "bigotry" on this site. And there are no easy answers or inherently "better" ways of dealing with it.
There is also the matter of personal importance of an issue. For me, geographic- and race-based bigotry is the most important. I'm not exactly sure where to put religion, but it's probably after the previously mentioned. Following that would be sexual preference, and mental ability would be far, far down on my list. There is a reason for this ordering. If I were to paint in very broad strokes, I would say that the sheer amount of human suffering caused by bigotry in these categories is roughly proportional to my antipathy toward the respective form of bigotry.
Also, words that insult personal intelligence are myriad. What distinguished "retard" from "dumb" or "moronic." Your response may be that it is a medically recognized condition. Well, first, so was "moron." Second, many things are medically recognized restrictions on the human body to function mentally or physically. However, "Dude you look like a cancer patient" probably shouldn't be classified as bigotry.
However, if this is the issue that strikes home for you, I understand a different ordering. Perhaps (and I'm not saying metsfan thinks this way), you feel that genetic traits are more important because they cannot be controlled. Perhaps one of the issues has personally affected you more. Regardless, everyone is going to have their own feelings. CC is in the unenviable position of turning those feelings into policy against a backdrop of competing interests, such as the "open forum" nature of the internet that is prized by many as an avenue for unrestricted or less restricted speech.
greenoaks wrote:i'm with mets here.
i dont get why we can comment on someone's intellect but not their sexuality. insults are insults.
either we tell everyone to suck it up cupcake or no smacktalk allowed at all. to say one group needs protection but not all the others is wrong.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:greenoaks wrote:i'm with mets here.
i dont get why we can comment on someone's intellect but not their sexuality. insults are insults.
either we tell everyone to suck it up cupcake or no smacktalk allowed at all. to say one group needs protection but not all the others is wrong.
Whats not to get? There is a large obvious difference between an insult and bigotry/racism...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users