RenewIT...........Bigot [warned] BG

[greenoaks]

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 ?"

[Jdsizzleslice]

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 ?"

Either or, yes.

GeneralRisk is just using this as an excuse to report something that should be equally punishable to him as well.

[afroaction]

Well if you're referring to Generalrisk's sexual preference, Renew should of called him a goat Fuckker!

[Jdsizzleslice]

Well if you're referring Generalrisk's sexual preference, Renew should of called him a goat Fuckker!

CC should add a "Like" button to a forum post.

[lynch5762]

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??

[greenoaks]

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??

that those who think being gay is an abomination would be offended if called one.

to hide their severe homophobia they come here to dob on others.

[agentcom]

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.

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.

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.

You're missing the point. The definitions don't get to be set by school children. In the case of "fag" and "nigger" the definitions were set by bigots and they cannot change. In the case of retard the word was proper terminology. The fact that some groups of people appropriated all of these terms as epithets does not mean that we should treat all of them equally. People have turned lots of words into insults. But some of those insults ALSO happen to be terms that are historically bigoted terms.

Another comparison, aside from this main point but related, I have friends that use this sort of language to a varying degree. I'm sure you do, too. Or at least you've been around them. Some of them, I don't think are racist or homophobic. But some of my friends, I think know are letting a little bit of racism slip out because they think they're in a "safe" environment.

To contrast, I don't think that anyone that I've ever heard say "retard" actually has any sort of animosity toward retarded people.

And FYI, being called a fag shouldn't hurt you unless you really are one.

I see the little wink there, so I hope that means you're joking.

[BGtheBrain]

RenewIT has been WARNED for bigtory

[Metsfanmax]

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.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

[greenoaks]

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.

baiting is acceptable

[agentcom]

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.

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.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

I don't disagree with your ordering and its justification. But ordering to begin with, presupposes the idea that we cannot target all instances of bigotry equally. I don't think this is true on Conquer Club. All that we have are words, and it's equally easy (or difficult) to enforce what specific words are allowed.

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.

This remark is valid too. The pejorative words used to refer to such people have changed over time. It wasn't always "retard," and probably won't always be "retard." But this is just the nature of the beast; that's the word people do use now, and it is currently seen as offensive. The main difference is that I do think people form a specific connection to people with mental disabilities when they use that word, as opposed to "moron" (although this may be a reactionary result of the fact that the community got upset about the term in the first place). I can't prove this in all cases, but I think it is prevalent.

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.

Actually, this is not an issue in which I have a personal stake (in the sense that I don't have friends or family that have such conditions). I just strongly object to bigotry in general. For me, it's always the intent that matters. If someone uses the word "retard" as an insult, in an attempt to link you to someone with a mental disability, with the unspoken assumption that it's bad or wrong to be that way, I consider that bigotry. That being said, it's usually really hard to tell whether someone was intending to make this connection or not, so an outright ban is the cleanest way to go about it. I don't like censoring free speech in general, but if we're going to have a bigotry rule, we should surely be consistent with it.

[greenoaks]

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.

[jefjef]

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...