This seems pretty offensive to little people.natty dread wrote:No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
Lx
Moderator: Community Team

This seems pretty offensive to little people.natty dread wrote:No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
AAFitz wrote:I just felt a disturbance in the force that sounded like a thousand voices screaming, "Oh." and then were suddenly silenced.deathcomesrippin wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=168042&p=3675668#p3675668
The decision was overturned- the case remains Closed, but they will all be punished according to where they stand on the Bigotry scale.
I fear something wonderful has happened.

Not to mention mouth breathers.Lindax wrote:This seems pretty offensive to little people.natty dread wrote:No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
Lx
What's all this then?Lindax wrote:This seems pretty offensive to little people.natty dread wrote:No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
Lx

Not when Jesus was alive. Some of them are nowadays, but not back then. Jesus wasn't white. He was brown/tan/olive-skinned, however you want to phrase it, just like all the other Jews that lived there during his time.freakns wrote:and jewish ppl arent caucasians?tkr4lf wrote:How is owen's signature provocative to Caucasians? Jesus wasn't a Caucasian, he was Jewish.freakns wrote:right on target...Lindax wrote:I did. You have a problem with that? If so, why?owenshooter wrote:p.s.-and did someone really just bust out the N word? mod edit? anyone? anyone... wow...
I'm not religious, but I can imagine many more people being offended with somebody calling himself the Black Jesus than me using the word nigger in the context I did.
Lx
it would be interesting to see owen reaction if someone starts to sign as "white Martin Luther King"... personally, similar to you, i dont care about religion, but it is signature written down to provoke caucasians, meaning its motivated by racism.
nope, none... admins have repeatedly stated that bigotry is bigotry no matter what the circumstance.. furthermore, they have stated that even "inside jokes" can get you banned if one person misinterprets it... and that has happened in the past. bigotry is bigotry, period...-el Jesus negroHaggis_McMutton wrote:This is beyond ridiculous.
The guy who is the supposed "victim" of the fag comment repeatedly stated he has no problem with it. The punishment was still meted out because people whom the author didn't even have in mind when he wrote the comment, read it and were offended.
Do you people see the problem here? Really, no?

owenshooter: Always taking the fun out of bigfunotry.Gillipig wrote:Why do you have to take the fun out of everything owen?

Big difference between flaming and using bigoted/racist terms. When you grow up, you'll hopefully figure it out.Gillipig wrote:Why do you have to take the fun out of everything owen? Why can't we even have one day when you can get away with anything on this site? One day of flame wars is not to much too much by any means!

Haggis_McMutton wrote:This is beyond ridiculous.
The guy who is the supposed "victim" of the fag comment repeatedly stated he has no problem with it. The punishment was still meted out because people whom the author didn't even have in mind when he wrote the comment, read it and were offended.
Do you people see the problem here? Really, no?
I suppose, for instance, this company : http://www.fag.com, should be shut down solely because in your estimation most people associate the word fag with a slur directed against homosexuals (care to provide some data backing that btw? seems to me it's far more commonly used as a synonym for "asshole" or some such).
No word should be completely unacceptable. No matter the historical baggage, used carefully any word can avoid being demeaning to any group. Indeed by treating some words as fuckin' magic voodoo spells we are only contributing to the power they hold.
\natty dread wrote:Falkomagno wrote:words itself are meaningless, but the intention and context given is what really shape its meaning
No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
The meaning of any given word is an agreement between everyone who speaks the same language. Intent has nothing to do with it, because people are not fucking mind readers and can not discern the intent behind any given word unless you spell it out. It's not rocket science.
You can't go on calling people n***ers or f***ots and then be all "hurr durr I didn't mean anything with it, they're just words durrrr" because you cannot ignore the historical and cultural baggage of a word.

Yeah guess what genius, those words are still meaningless. You can't tell if a bowl of smurf means a bowl of soup or disembodied penises.demonfork wrote:Even the Smufs understand that words are meaningless without context.
Go smurf yourself.
It's smurfing cats and dogs today.
I'm hungry I could sure go for a bowl of smurf.
Hey look at that, it's the guy who a while ago was insisting that black people are genetically inferior to white on the offtopics forum.Gillipig wrote:Why do you have to take the fun out of everything owen? Why can't we even have one day when you can get away with anything on this site? One day of flame wars is not to much too much by any means!

hey, hey, hey!! that was ok, because it was in off topics!!! don't go trying to make them enforce rules ALL OVER THE SITE!!!-el Jesus negronatty dread wrote:Hey look at that, it's the guy who a while ago was insisting that black people are genetically inferior to white on the offtopics forum.Gillipig wrote:Why do you have to take the fun out of everything owen? Why can't we even have one day when you can get away with anything on this site? One day of flame wars is not to much too much by any means!
How am I not surprised to see you defending bigotry here...

If that was true, then there would never be any misunderstanding on the meaning of any word among everyone who speaks the same language because, according to you, "the meaning of any given word is an agreement between everyone who speaks the same language." Yet, that's false. Look at the disagreement over the meaning of words in this thread...natty dread wrote:Falkomagno wrote:words itself are meaningless, but the intention and context given is what really shape its meaning
No, words are not meaningless, and anyone who thinks they are is a mouthbreathing braindwarf.
The meaning of any given word is an agreement between everyone who speaks the same language. Intent has nothing to do with it, because people are not fucking mind readers and can not discern the intent behind any given word unless you spell it out. It's not rocket science.
You can't go on calling people n***ers or f***ots and then be all "hurr durr I didn't mean anything with it, they're just words durrrr" because you cannot ignore the historical and cultural baggage of a word.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... w#p3670873BigBallinStalin wrote:There's always the possibility of being misunderstood and of being fearful of the unknown. Since that exists, then politicians and the mainstream media will use this to their advantage. So, it's wiser to opt toward my Step 1 first:natty dread wrote:On the other hand, don't you think that people who say bigoted things are creating an atmosphere that enables and allows people to do bigoted things?saxitoxin wrote:I think doing bigoted things should occupy more attention than saying bigoted things.
Without a population of people who approve bigoted things, there's no opportunity for bigots to do bigoted things...
Step 1 would be attaining mutual understanding through my approach in ITT.
The incorrect Step 1 is jumping to the conclusion that his words seem bigoted; therefore, rabidly attack him.
After my Step 1 has been reached, then the conclusion of "bigot or not bigot" can be justified; therefore, attack or not attack away.
This reminds me of several conversations I've had with some black people. Some would say, "I hate niggers." I go, "Whoa now! What do you mean?" Then they explain, and I realize that they're talking about a certain group of people--not all black people. For some of them, the term "niggers" describes these criminals, rapists, thieves, thugs, etc. who live in their neighborhoods. Is it bigoted to hate people who murder, steal, and rape? ...
Subjective meaning is complex; there is no black-and-white here. So, it makes sense to attain mutual understanding before accusing people of bigotry, racism, etc. Don't you agree?

I dare you to quote me shithead!natty dread wrote:demonfork wrote:Hey look at that, it's the guy who a while ago was insisting that black people are genetically inferior to white on the offtopics forum.Gillipig wrote:Why do you have to take the fun out of everything owen? Why can't we even have one day when you can get away with anything on this site? One day of flame wars is not to much too much by any means!
How am I not surprised to see you defending bigotry here...
Gillipig wrote:Actually I wouldn't call that comment racist! Racisim is the belief of one race being superior to another! You only said f'ck white people so you haven't said that caucasians are better or worse than other races.Army of GOD wrote:f*ck white people
Here's a question for you guys; Can you be racist and have right?
If I say black people are better at running than white people I'm saying something racist aka black are superior to white people. Yet that's 100% true! There's little doubt that black people have genetic advantages when it comes to running.
In the same way I can say that white people have higher IQ than black people (that is documented and supported by several scientific studies and NOT just racist ramblings) ! And that would also be 100% true and equally racist. But somehow society wouldn't see it the same way. Society would twist it into the latter comment being deeply racist and and the first comment not racist at all which is just utter bullshit because they're both equally valid and racist!
If you want sources for the IQ thing I'll be more than happy to post them here but I won't post them if no one disputes this being true!

There is no empirical evidence that will show that the IQ gap that exists between whites and blacks has anything to do with genetics or cognitive ability. However there is much evidence that supports the notion that the gap is caused by socioeconomic and/or environmental factors.natty dread wrote:As requested.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p3037082
Gillipig wrote:Actually I wouldn't call that comment racist! Racisim is the belief of one race being superior to another! You only said f'ck white people so you haven't said that caucasians are better or worse than other races.Army of GOD wrote:f*ck white people
Here's a question for you guys; Can you be racist and have right?
If I say black people are better at running than white people I'm saying something racist aka black are superior to white people. Yet that's 100% true! There's little doubt that black people have genetic advantages when it comes to running.
In the same way I can say that white people have higher IQ than black people (that is documented and supported by several scientific studies and NOT just racist ramblings) ! And that would also be 100% true and equally racist. But somehow society wouldn't see it the same way. Society would twist it into the latter comment being deeply racist and and the first comment not racist at all which is just utter bullshit because they're both equally valid and racist!
If you want sources for the IQ thing I'll be more than happy to post them here but I won't post them if no one disputes this being true!
