Conquer Club

PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Is racism taken seriously enough on CC?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby MrBenn on Fri May 22, 2009 2:15 pm

GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Banned words?!?! Get real!

Saying and using a word, depending on the situation is what makes particular words bad.

Example:
1. Boy, it sure is fucking hot!

2. You're a fucking idiot!

First example, is not to be considered vulgar. Second example is vulgar.

Actually, both sentences are inappropriate. Why not just say "Boy, it sure is hot" or "You're an idiot"?

If we're going to filter words, why not filter all words that are on the censorship lists used to guide film classifications?

However, the debate isn't so much about the specific language, but about the intent/attitude behind the language...
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby ronsizzle on Fri May 22, 2009 2:17 pm

that would be one person that would leave cc.

that person is a cancer cell here anyways.

that person busts the mods chops on an everyday basis, and then expects them to bend over backwards.

i see less racism on this site than any other site i go to. i will reup my premium when this is all sorted out.

i would like to see what happens before i do so. regardless of me reupping for myself. i will still spend 25 dollars though, and buy someone else premium just to help the site out that i love.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ronsizzle
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:30 pm

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby JoshyBoy on Fri May 22, 2009 2:36 pm

I did say I wasn't going to post on this topic anymore but I have been given some information and spent a few hours researching the background into what I was saying.

And for the most part, I was WRONG. Apologies to everyone but especially to owenshooter and woodruff.

I believe this topic has no real relevance to me playing ConquerClub and I will just get myself into trouble if I keep talking! :lol: so have fun carrying on this thread, but I personally would finish it off and lock it with some satisfactory end being met.

Cheers and apologies again, JB ;)
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.

Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
User avatar
Lieutenant JoshyBoy
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: In the gym. Yeah, still there.

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby GENERAL STONEHAM on Fri May 22, 2009 2:48 pm

MrBenn wrote:
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Banned words?!?! Get real!

Saying and using a word, depending on the situation is what makes particular words bad.

Example:
1. Boy, it sure is fucking hot!

2. You're a fucking idiot!

First example, is not to be considered vulgar. Second example is vulgar.

Actually, both sentences are inappropriate. Why not just say "Boy, it sure is hot" or "You're an idiot"?

If we're going to filter words, why not filter all words that are on the censorship lists used to guide film classifications?

However, the debate isn't so much about the specific language, but about the intent/attitude behind the language...





I can quote a book about slavery and how the Plantation owner would yell, "Fucking niggers get back to work!"

This is reciting a quote from a book or past history, NOT a personal slander to any poster here.

We all can get carried away by being so political correct that it would hinder any type of debate or discussion. Unfortunately, especially those from the United States, who throw in a four letter to liven up the language, this is used by most of us YANKS. Try going to the foreign language forums and you'll see that, they too use profanity to add "flavor" to their discussions.

Having some type of filter in these forums would be a grave mistake. If, someone slanders you, complain to the Moderators. You're offended by colorful language, go to a some religious blog.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class GENERAL STONEHAM
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: EXILED, BANNED and INCARCERATED!

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby jiminski on Fri May 22, 2009 3:06 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Okay, so I've listed the three discussion eras below---for easy reference to particular noteworthy posts, issues, middle grounds, etc.

Era One Discussion
Era Two Discussion
Era Three Discussion

=====================================================

Era One, Issues Summation:
  • Bigotry is more prevalent in CC than thought---a large portion occurs in Game Chats and PM, though some also occurrs in the Forums (I'm assumingly mostly GD, Off Topics, and Usergroups).
  • Bigotry is ineffectively or inconsistently dealt with. I.E. Team CC does this, and/or Conquer Club in general does not offer enough tools (like the Foe List, Reporting Posts) to add to a user's arsenal to combat such issues.
  • Bigotry should be punished more severely than other "No-No's" from the Community Guidelines.


    As for the otherside:
  • Bigotry is being used by individuals to troll/spam/cause general chaos for fun.
  • Bigotry is dealt with when reported.

Era One, Middle Grounds Proposed:
  • Possible addition of a "Report Link" in Active Games (hwhrhett).
  • Increased punishment scale for Bigotry over other less community impacting No-No's (such as spamming) (many users contributed to this). A few scales proposed:
    • 1 Strike and Done (Bruceswar).
    • Small Initial Vacation, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation (owenator, whitestazn88, owenshooter).
    • Middle Initial Vacation, Permanent Vacation (xxtig12683xx, squishyg).
    • Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation (Andy Dufresne, General Stoneham).
    • Stick with the Current Scale of Punishment (barterer2002, Artimis)

=====================================================

Era Two, Issues Summation:
  • Context of "gray" areas, cited by xelabale on page 8.
  • Humor's role in all of this, cited by General Stoneham on page 12.

Era Two, Middle Grounds Proposed:
  • Stern warnings first, followed by increased punishment, perhaps similar to what Timminz outlined, may be a middle ground we can all agree on to help the issue of Context and Humor---allows the user to understand what is acceptable and isn't.
  • Possible additional and more use of the forum's censor feature.

======================================================

Era Three, Issues Summation:
  • Who gets offended when, cited by A.sub and woodruff on page 14.
  • What is offensive, isn't always bigoted, cited by xelable on page 14---"Context" is still key.
  • Keep your personal information private when possible, responsibility, cited by Mr Changsha on page 17/18.

Middle Grounds Proposed:
  • Community consultation/questionaire (Need more info).
  • Increased punishment for reports when the abused party reports, to keep misunderstandings to a minimum (jiminski).
  • Clarify bigotry rules, what is allowed, what isn't, the context, when, etc, via community consultation (thegreekdog).

--Andy


Very good stuff mate.

heh where to begin!? Well very vaguely I don't agree that any words should be banned/censored without reference to context. That is absolutely nonnegotiable from my point of view. (sorry if that is unhelpful)

I'll be back later if i feel inspired to waffle a bit in greater detail but it is an excellent effort to bring focus to the issue.
Image
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby bjc23 on Fri May 22, 2009 3:41 pm

ronc8649 wrote:that would be one person that would leave cc.

that person is a cancer cell here anyways.

that person busts the mods chops on an everyday basis, and then expects them to bend over backwards.

i see less racism on this site than any other site i go to. i will reup my premium when this is all sorted out.

i would like to see what happens before i do so. regardless of me reupping for myself. i will still spend 25 dollars though, and buy someone else premium just to help the site out that i love.

Well, ronc8649, ya mind helping a newbie on his way to conquerclub greatness with your purchase of premium membership? (YOU buy premium membership for ME). ;)

As I said, I have recently joined this site by reference from a friend, and this does seem to be a pretty neat site as I used to be a pretty avid Risk player. So I decided to peruse the forums, and "Bigotry on CC" caught my eye (it's the only thing in the forums I have read thus far). As I have come to learn, this is not only a site just to play Risk online, it is in fact it's own community where friends and enemies have been made, online personas have become loved or hated; a place to hang out and meet new people.

So onto the point. Now, I'm not accustomed to how this site works, but I'm human and have my own opinions of this matter, so I thought I'd share. Many have made valid points, sometimes made the exact same point over and over again, although a still valid point (owenshooter), but some have laid out some pretty bad ideas. For one, I whole-heartedly disagree with Night Strike (and others) when they say the "n" word is only denigrating depending on the context. Please, tell me when it's a kind word to use. Think of the meaning of the word, it's sole purpose is to show distaste to African-Americans. Sure, you can say, "I'm not using it against them, just referring to the word" as if to say "(n word) is a term used against African-Americans." In that context, one could make the point that they aren't using it to harm anyone, but still, the word has deep meaning, dating back hundreds of years. I disagree again with the person who made that point that it has only recently become a political incorrect word and that hundreds of years ago, it was a "nice" word to use. That's completely false. The word was used (I have been to a presentation at a local museum about this) commonly by the white folk in the days of slavery to signify white people's dominance over the black race, and to show a lack of respect to the African-American community. Just read the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, although a fictional story, has many factual-based evidence throughout the book. You'll quickly see the terrible weight the "n" word holds.

The word has such a deep meaning, very hurtful to any man (or woman) of color, ESPECIALLY many years ago. Let me also argue those that have written about African-Americans saying the term to each other. I have many black friends, and I believe I can put my two cents in here too. Pardon me ahead of time for writing this, but "nigga" and the actual "n word" have completely different meanings. Black people use "nigga" as a term of endearment in a way, and they use it freely in conversation. But see, if a white person tries to use it, it's really not okay, and truthfully, I have NEVER said the word. Not even once. Not even when no one else was around, I just feel uncomfortable saying it, myself! If an African-American used the complete "n word," then it raises some eyebrows, and the person the word was aimed at will have something to say. I don't even say "nigga" as I am still white, therefore not having the right to use it which is perfectly fine by me.

As I am also learning, the current punishment system set in place is a "warning, short ban, extended ban, permanently banned"? As I have no clue if this punishment system is enforced, or how tightly it is followed, I can not really say what I think. But here is some food for thought. People have campaigned to have stiffer penalties for bigotry offenses. If I had not read this, and let the word slip (I, personally would not do this, but as a new person, I could have, especially if I hadn't ready this Bigotry topic), I would immediately get a stiff penalty. It will seem like I am going against what I have previously written, but having an excessively stiff penalty, especially for the first offense, is too much. What I would suggest is having a normal warning for the first offense, and if the person makes a second offense, only THEN would it be okay to dish out stiff penalties, b/c they have been warned and would then learn of the stiff penalties that follow for bigotry offenses from that particular warning they had already received.

Well there ya go, take it or leave it.

It will be fun to be a part of the ConquerClub community, looking forward to playing many games with all of you (with or without premium membership) :)
Sergeant bjc23
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:08 pm

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby MrMoody on Fri May 22, 2009 4:08 pm

jiminski wrote:Very good stuff mate.

heh where to begin!? Well very vaguely I don't agree that any words should be banned/censored without reference to context. That is absolutely nonnegotiable from my point of view. (sorry if that is unhelpful)

I'll be back later if i feel inspired to waffle a bit in greater detail but it is an excellent effort to bring focus to the issue.

CC already has word filters in place. Words with much less racist backgrounds are filtered. When I first joined CC the word "sex" was filtered in Live Chat. When chat was upgraded the filter was never fully restored. You still can't say "bitch" in chat. The "N" word is filtered also. If CC is going to filter Live Chat why shouldn't they filter the forum? Is the heated debate not the same in both places?
The "N" word carries to much racial history. Yes I agree context can change things but I still think it should be in the filter. I for one would not like to see it blasted all over the forums.
The response to often is only "put them on foe" Guidelines are already in place to deal with this. Foeing them is fine, they should still be started down the road of a first warning. This would let the abused know more was done other then "put them on foe"

The in game report button is a great idea. I believe this works like an ETicket in that the reporter gets an emailed reply once its looked at?
Image
User avatar
Major MrMoody
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Heaven

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby jiminski on Fri May 22, 2009 4:22 pm

MrMoody wrote:
jiminski wrote:Very good stuff mate.

heh where to begin!? Well very vaguely I don't agree that any words should be banned/censored without reference to context. That is absolutely nonnegotiable from my point of view. (sorry if that is unhelpful)

I'll be back later if i feel inspired to waffle a bit in greater detail but it is an excellent effort to bring focus to the issue.

CC already has word filters in place. Words with much less racist backgrounds are filtered. When I first joined CC the word "sex" was filtered in Live Chat. When chat was upgraded the filter was never fully restored. You still can't say "bitch" in chat. The "N" word is filtered also. If CC is going to filter Live Chat why shouldn't they filter the forum? Is the heated debate not the same in both places?
The "N" word carries to much racial history. Yes I agree context can change things but I still think it should be in the filter. I for one would not like to see it blasted all over the forums.
.....



Though i use any word sparingly and as accurately as i can, for example i always make sure 'fuck' is visible on the rare occasion i chose to use it.
If other words are filtered and more, they are added to a 'banned list' with no reference to context, i will find a way to get around the filter and get banned. It is a point of principle for me and sadly unavoidable.


Anyway, there is so much good stuff on the list of points that hopefully something sensible will happen.
Image
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby xelabale on Fri May 22, 2009 4:59 pm

I'm extremely happy about this thread. Despite some detours into trolling for which I and others are guilty, some real progress has been made, due in no small part to monkeyboy. Thank you andy for keeping this a genuine conversation.

It seems that we all agree bigotry is wrong.
It seems most agree there is too much on CC (though not all)
The discussion now seems to be:
a) What constitutes bigotry
b) What to do about it

I argue that you can't simply censor words. Watch: f*ck - f'uck
see, didn't work.

You can't ban bigotry using filters or fixed parameters -"You're an idiotic cotton picker" is the same as "You're a stupid n%%%er" in intent, but the "bad" words aren't used. Bigotry is a state of mind, an attitude.

So, my solution is to give mods the power to decide. However, this is an unfair task for the mods on their own. Even if they put in a superhuman effort (which I'm sure they do ;) ) they would make mistakes. They need help. This can come in several ways:
  • A comprehensive set of guidelines perhaps made by us/lack/andy/a reputable organisation that has already gone through this process
  • Reporting devices as mentioned in andy's post above to highlight potential problems
  • A clear procedure and punishment scale (as discussed and not yet resolved)
  • The support of the community
As long as the policy is clear, strong, and enforced, it will work, even if not everyone agrees with it. The problems come with ambiguity and lack of consistent enforcement of stated rules.
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby squishyg on Fri May 22, 2009 5:05 pm

Agreed. I started working on a draft version of some guidelines, but it's leaning more towards what not to do rather than what people should do. My personal goal is for cc (and next, the world) to be a nicer place where we all take each other into consideration.

I'm going to retool what I started working on so it sets more of a tone for what we'd like to see in the cc community, rather than what we don't want to see. It seems like it is necessary though to include some don'ts, to head off misunderstandings.
User avatar
Captain squishyg
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby xelabale on Fri May 22, 2009 5:06 pm

squishyg wrote:Agreed. I started working on a draft version of some guidelines, but it's leaning more towards what not to do rather than what people should do. My personal goal is for cc (and next, the world) to be a nicer place where we all take each other into consideration.

I'm going to retool what I started working on so it sets more of a tone for what we'd like to see in the cc community, rather than what we don't want to see. It seems like it is necessary though to include some don'ts, to head off misunderstandings.

Or, we could take an organisation that's done this before and steal their guidelines.
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby squishyg on Fri May 22, 2009 5:08 pm

xelabale wrote:
squishyg wrote:Agreed. I started working on a draft version of some guidelines, but it's leaning more towards what not to do rather than what people should do. My personal goal is for cc (and next, the world) to be a nicer place where we all take each other into consideration.

I'm going to retool what I started working on so it sets more of a tone for what we'd like to see in the cc community, rather than what we don't want to see. It seems like it is necessary though to include some don'ts, to head off misunderstandings.

Or, we could take an organisation that's done this before and steal their guidelines.


That could also work and reeks of less effort. Can you find and post one?
User avatar
Captain squishyg
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 pm

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby xelabale on Fri May 22, 2009 5:23 pm

Wow, no. I looked for half an hour (I know, I DO work hard). I found lots of emotionally charged rhetoric but little sanity and no guidelines for dealing with these things. Surely drawing up these guidelines is beyond the remit of andy, lack or even General Stoneham? I'm sure they must exist, maybe we should start by looking at the declaration of human rights and work from there? Is cc truly so groundbreaking or do my search terms suck?
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 6:58 pm

JoshyBoy wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
JoshyBoy wrote:I'm sorry if I've upset you owen, but the point I am trying to make - which I'll admit I didn't really make clear - is that the "n" word (I won't use it from now on, forgive my insensitivity) was used for almost a couple of hundred years, for example in the first world war, in a non-derogatory way. It's only recently that Political Correctness has gone crazy, and it is only recently that people have started using it in a derogatory way.


As early as the 1800s, the term was considered a derogatory one, so this really cannot in any way be blamed on political correctness, nor is it's derogatory usage only recent.


I must disagree with you Woodruff. It CAN be blamed on political correctness. Because until recently (talking maybe a decade or two) the "n" word was used and nobody complained. Then along came good ol' PC and the world went mad.


This is simply not true. As I said, as early as the 1800s, the term was considered a derogatory one.

JoshyBoy wrote:Whether you like it or not Political Control... sorry I mean "Correctness" has a lot to answer for.


Don't misunderstand me...I am NOT a fan of political correctness (which is in my opinion the term for when "carefulness" is taken overboard). However, trying to eliminate the use of the N word has absolutely nothing at all to do with political correctness.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:01 pm

Artimis wrote:It's not pointless, Jim set out to get some intelligent debate, which he got, unfortunately this thread was also deluged with bucket loads of trolling and thread derailment from the usual suspects. I hope the admins take on board the serious contributions, such as sourcing more applicable and better laid out tried and tested guidelines from other organisations.

On the subject of the scale of punishment, leave it exactly where it is. I'd love to see trolling, and purposeful thread derailing punished more harshly, but it won't happen because the mods need to give mild cases the benefit of the doubt for fear of punishing an innocent mistake. The scale of punishment is fine, if it's not broken, don't fix it!


I agree with you in the instances where the benefit of the doubt should be given. However, what we're actually discussing here (I believe) are those cases where there really IS NO doubt.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Racism on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm

sam_levi_11 wrote:
jiminski wrote:
sam_levi_11 wrote:The rules of the site also state homophobia yet i have given evidence before, with witnesses, of homophobia (im bisexual) and nothing was done. Dont think it will be any different soon. Fact is its the internet, people will take up the last assholes position.



Though other than bisexuality being a little greedy, (i am a strong advocate of greed ;) ) i know precisely what you mean. homophobia is pretty much accepted or at least something way down the pecking order of crimes it seems. i am sure its rebuke has far less general sympathy than even anti-racism seems to have.


Pretty much, if i was black and someone called me the n word or w/e there would be uproar, but someone call me sumin cos im bi and no one gives a shit tbh.


That simply isn't true.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Racism on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:19 pm

Mr Changsha wrote:
sam_levi_11 wrote:This is very true indeed, but i did not want to lie as that means they win and its almost condoning it.


No, it means you have sense of privacy.


Yes, and no. I do understand why Sam would feel that by keeping it private, he's essentially being forced to hide it. He shouldn't have to hide it, nor should he be annoying about putting it out there, to look at it from a different perspective (and I'm not saying he did so, since I'm fully unaware of that situation).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:20 pm

MrBenn wrote:Does/should the definition of bigotry be extended to include blasphemy?


Blasphemy? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, MrBenn. Can you elaborate?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:22 pm

squishyg wrote:I respectfully disagree. I don't think a gay couple should have to pretend to be just buddies when out in public for fear of being hit with a beer bottle because someone is offended by homosexuality. I think the right to be who you are and to not have to hide it trumps the right of someone who dislikes/hates/fears you.


I agree with you, but I also think I agree with what Changsha is trying to say, I think. The two are not necessarily divergent concepts.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:25 pm

Mr Changsha wrote:
squishyg wrote:I respectfully disagree. I don't think a gay couple should have to pretend to be just buddies when out in public for fear of being hit with a beer bottle because someone is offended by homosexuality. I think the right to be who you are and to not have to hide it trumps the right of someone who dislikes/hates/fears you.


That's the key point but I'm not sure you are right about it. You live in a diverse community (I would suppose) and tolerance in such a situation works both ways. It is not enough to say that everyone should be able to live as they want to live. What if two groups ideals are in conflict?

Should two gay chaps want to walk arm in arm I say all the power to them! But should they walk past the (fictional I hope) "Anti-homosexuality brotherhood of Islam" mosque and thus offend a religious group by doing so? Now I would say that the anti-gay group have as much right to have their feelings respected as the two gay chaps, regardless of whether I agree with their views or not.

So the sensible thing to do, in my hypothetical situation, would be for the two gay chaps to not walk arm in arm past the mosque. In the same manner, the anti-gay brotherhood shouldn't try to leaflet the local gay bar either.

It is all about tolerance, you see? Quiet, dignified, tolerance.


Let me put it another way. If the KKK wants to hold a rally in a city, they have every right to do so (providing they go through the proper channels to get a permit and all). But they should fully expect that they're not necessarily going to get a warm reception from everyone at that rally. So yes, they have the right to show who they are, but there are still potential consequences to those actions that can reasonably be foreseen and expected (but not condoned, because I actually wouldn't condone someone physically interfering with the KKK rally, despite my personal feelings about the group).

Does that make sense?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:29 pm

MrBenn wrote:
jiminski wrote:
MrBenn wrote:Does/should the definition of bigotry be extended to include blasphemy?



christ no! i am not sure how it could. Could you give an example of how bigotry could be applicable to using blasphemous language?

Part of me is playing Devil's Advocate here.... but just because blasphemy may be considered socially acceptable to you, doesn't mean that all people will find it equally acceptable. Blasphemy could be construed as intolerance of a particular set of creeds of belief systems, and therefore fall under the bigotry umbrella.


No, I don't think so. I'm pretty big into the "tolerance" thing, but I don't see this as being applicable to bigotry. Offensive, absolutely. But offensive does not mean bigotted.

mpjh wrote:No, it is all about civil rights.

MrBenn wrote:I disagree: It's all about responsibility.
The moment somebody claims a right to something, it is usually in way of a direct condemnation/criticism and to effect a change in the behaviour/attitudes of others.
The moment somebody takes responsibility for something, it is usually an admission/desire to effect a personal change of behaviour/attitude.
The nuance is about taking personal responsibility for improvement, and to fall back on the religious metaphor of doing "unto others as you would have others do unto you."


I do like the way you think.
Last edited by Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:31 pm

pimpdave wrote:
Timminz wrote: For example, if you were to call pimpdave the n-word, I'm pretty certain that he would not be offended,


Well, actually, I'd be shocked and would bristle a bit. It would make me feel uncomfortable, but no, I wouldn't up and deck the person who said it to me. I'd probably verbally confront them, but would let it go if it wasn't worth the trouble and just move on with my life.

But hey, here's an idea, why don't you just talk about your own goddamn self and not continue with this make shit up about pimpdave trend going on in here.


Good heavens, people. Tell you what...if anyone would like to use MY NAME in an example to further the conversation, please feel free to do so. I won't get offended by it, as long as it's clearly just an example to further the conversation.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:33 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:[*]Bigotry should be punished more severely than other "No-No's" from the Community Guidelines.


When it is plainly clear with no real "decision" having to come into it, yes. If there's room for a benefit of the doubt, then it should revert to the normal policy, in my opinion. For me, it's two different sets of circumstances necessary for fairness to everyone involved.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri May 22, 2009 7:37 pm

I probably won't be up on this topic for the rest of the evening---or even tomorrow. It is the weekend you know. ;) But when I'm back in full force I hope to continue steer discussion. You guys are doing well. I suggest everyone re-read my summation post of the eras on page 20. Additionally, some good and focused points since page 20 have been made, so please to try respond from 20 or so on. Keep working towards an end.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary]

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 22, 2009 7:38 pm

ronc8649 wrote:if it aint broke! dont fix it!


Whether it is broken or not seems to be up for debate at this time, however.

ronc8649 wrote:why dont all of you in here realize that this is a GAMING SITE! if you start to enforce crazy rules with harsh punishments, you will see lost dividends.


That does not necessarily follow at all. In fact, I would suggest the opposite is likely to occur.

ronc8649 wrote:this thread is made and supported by whiners, babies, and over sensitive freaks. i dont care if you call me white trash, or a cracker. i guess i am a bigger man, and more secure with myself than most.


I am very secure with myself. Secure enough, in fact, that I am willing to stand up for people who are being treated unfairly.

ronc8649 wrote:GROW UP PEOPLE. let the mods do their jobs. and quit bashing them. they are mostly volunteers. but yet in every thread i see, i see this, "the mods do this, the mods do that, they dont do this, they dont do that". they do the best job they can. i stand by whatever they do here.


I don't believe anyone is mod-bashing at all in this thread.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users