Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iwan Terpalen]

I read that as Anslo already assuming a right to not be discriminated against for what you are as opposed to what you do exists, not as him trying to be some kind of moral arbiter. Would you say such a right does not exist, anyway?

[Hamish Grayson]

I read that as Anslo already assuming a right to not be discriminated against for what you are as opposed to what you do exists, not as him trying to be some kind of moral arbiter. Would you say such a right does not exist, anyway?

Expressing an opinion is not discrimination.   Some people’s opinions make them douche bags, and they have a right to douche bagdom.    Some people have the opposite opinion (which i share) but take that opinion so far to the extreme that it pegs them out on the douche-bag-o-meter just as far.


I am not a racist, homophobe, sexist or misogynist.  When I encounter someone who is I generally shun/ignore/avoid them.   I also choose to shun/ignore/avoid the ass holes on their podium screaming “I am an ethnic minority/woman/x-sexual and XYZ  has upset me.   You don’t have a right to upset me or disagree with me!”

When I hear this I read:  “I am a special snowflake and this makes me more entitled than you!”  which is just the same as "I'm a hetero WASP male and that makes me more entitled than you!"

As far as I’m concerned both sides are self entitled bigots and I want nothing to do with either.  Pots and kettles.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Expressing an opinion is not discrimination.   Some people’s opinions make them douche bags, and they have a right to douche bagdom.

I don't think that anyone has a right to be a douche bag. The freedom of expression and that includes speech ends where it's misused to infringe on the rights of other people. Thus the right to this freedom isn't absolute: it's to be considered in the context of other rights. That means that e.g. libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified are not protected by the right to freedom of speech. Thus, nor is being a douchebag, especially if you are because you engaged in one or any combination of the above acts.

[Hamish Grayson]

Please clarify which rights are being infringed upon.   I'm of the opinion that words alone cannot be discrimination.   I.e chick-fil-a expressed an opinion on homosexuality yet still served chicken to and employed homosexuals with the same wages as heterosexuals.  Expressing extreme opinions, even those different than my own (I.e homosexuality is morally wrong) is not discrimination and I will not yield that point.
   
It's not an infringement on the rights of others no matter how my it may offend yours or my sensibilities.   However, taking away their right to express an opinion just because I don't share it would be discrimination and an infringement upon their rights.

[Anslol]

The right to happiness and peace of mind in one's existence should trump a bigot's 'right' to make that person feel like they should die or not exist or be ashamed for who they are.

Oh but wait, those people should HTFU then right? Yeah, no.

Oh it's their fault for not exercising their right to be happy? Yeah, no again.

Like it or not, words are incredibly powerful things that we humans fling around lightly for all the world like confetti in a parade, mindless to what those words could do to another human being. You seem like one of those people who believe words should not be taken seriously and that mental health issues are purely the fault of the individual being bullied or tortured verbally and mentally. If that is the case, I feel your world view should expand a bit more.

The bottom line is that yes words to you may be just words, but to others those words are as deep cutting and gashing as a serrated blade on skin. Words start wars, words cause homicides, and words can do so so much more.

So be very very careful what you say (this goes for everyone, straight, gay, bi, trans, pan, whatever).

[Desiderya]

I think you shouldn't be entitled to insulting players. The line is not always clear, but overall it can be clarified in conversation.
I don't think I - or anyone - should stop using the term "Space lesbian" ( Or space fascist ) in jest because someone somewhere might feel offended.
 

[Hamish Grayson]

others those words are as deep cutting and gashing as a serrated blade on skin.

Such a person would need clinical help ASAP.

[Anslol]

others those words are as deep cutting and gashing as a serrated blade on skin.

Such a person would need clinical help ASAP.

Stop misconstruing my words to make it out to seem like someone is cutting themselves because of being bullied as opposed to feeling AS hurt as IF they were cut.

[Lyn Farel]

Well, I have been told to HTFU by members here on different subjects, not involving spaceship QQing.

Did it involve being discriminated against for who you are? If so then they had no right to say HTFU in the first place.

Yes.

You see the hypocrisy.

If you're going to make claims like this, it's only polite to provide examples. Because I've yet to see anyone discriminating against you on here.

Flinging shit at you for the way your approach to discussions and debates comes across to others, yes.

Discriminating, no.

Feeling concerned ?

Oh right, I shouldn't have made a parallel between discrimination and ostracism. Silly of me. The end result is so much different.

Also, isn't flinging shit at others against the rules here ?

This discussion is going nowhere, and I have made a mistake by bringing that on the table.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Please clarify which rights are being infringed upon.   I'm of the opinion that words alone cannot be discrimination.   I.e chick-fil-a expressed an opinion on homosexuality yet still served chicken to and employed homosexuals with the same wages as heterosexuals.  Expressing extreme opinions, even those different than my own (I.e homosexuality is morally wrong) is not discrimination and I will not yield that point.
   
It's not an infringement on the rights of others no matter how my it may offend yours or my sensibilities.   However, taking away their right to express an opinion just because I don't share it would be discrimination and an infringement upon their rights.

Words alone can certainly be discrimination.  If I were to hold the opinion that Homosexuals were Not To Be Tolerated, made that very well known, and called people fags, etc, when suspecting that they are homosexuals, I am discriminating against them, whether or not I then take their money to serve them soggy chicken tenders.

[Morwen Lagann]

Concerned? Hardly. More like amused.

Caldari RPers making use of RP concepts and devices that make a cliquey and isolationist culture seem cliquey and isolationist is not discrimination of you as a player, nor is it ostracism. It's RPing a cliquey and isolationist culture as exactly that. Nothing stops you from creating a Caldari character and getting involved except your own willpower.

People pointing out that your approach to discussions on this forum often comes across as "arguing for the sake of arguing" is not discrimination, nor is it really ostracism. It's pointing out your way of doing things frequently prevents you from making your argument clearly to others without inflaming the situation, and prevents you from understanding ones made by others.

If people were ostracizing you, nobody would respond to you or acknowledge you exist. I find you difficult to have a serious conversation with for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean I or others pretend you don't exist. (Edit- In fact, I recall a few decent IC conversations we've had that we never got to follow up on, thinking about it.) I reserve ignoring someone's existence for people who are actually impossible to deal with.

I didn't say anything about the rules, by the way. Just things I'd witnessed, and you're right - this is not going to go anywhere, and you made a mistake by putting it on the table. So maybe a thread split is in order?

[Saede Riordan]

Please clarify which rights are being infringed upon.   I'm of the opinion that words alone cannot be discrimination.   I.e chick-fil-a expressed an opinion on homosexuality yet still served chicken to and employed homosexuals with the same wages as heterosexuals.  Expressing extreme opinions, even those different than my own (I.e homosexuality is morally wrong) is not discrimination and I will not yield that point.
   
It's not an infringement on the rights of others no matter how my it may offend yours or my sensibilities.   However, taking away their right to express an opinion just because I don't share it would be discrimination and an infringement upon their rights.

Words alone can certainly be discrimination.  If I were to hold the opinion that Homosexuals were Not To Be Tolerated, made that very well known, and called people fags, etc, when suspecting that they are homosexuals, I am discriminating against them, whether or not I then take their money to serve them soggy chicken tenders.

But he's allowed to do that. And really, he should be allowed to be a dickhead if he wants. This link summarizes my thoughts on freedom of speech, and why, while it sucks, I will defend the rights of people to call me faggots.

[Hamish Grayson]

Words are the communication of information.   Just because you sensor the communication does make that information go away.   It just makes others ignorant of it.  If there was a person who suffered at knowing I liked the color blue, it does change that I'm a blue fan just because commissar Anslol says I can't talk about blue (nor does the glorious leader of the red brigade care if not talking about blue causes me mental anguish.  Red happiness is the only thing that is important).     

Frankly I'd rather info be available to me than not.  Knowledge is
Power.

Now...

The claim here is that certain groups  should not be able communicate information about what they feel to the rest of humanity because it will cause a certain segment of population mental anguish.

However, I think that before we give someone the power to sensor people who share different opinions on sexuality than yours and mine...there are two points to consider:

There are people out there who suffer a 'deep cutting and gnashing as if by a serrated blade' when they discover someone isn't a heterosexual.    This might even be out of a misguided concern for the others well being and not out of malice.   

Are we to sensor just one group and not the other?   Or do we sensor all of humanity on the topic of sexuality completely?   How do I find a date if I can't communicate my sexuality to anyone by any means.   Talk about some serious mental anguish!

Point two:   What happens when the authorities we've given the power to sensor peoples opinions that don't agree with our own at some point diverges from ours?   Or what if we change our opinion?    How far does sensoring get to go?

You can't stop the signal.

[Jekaterine]

[mod]Removed for derailment and continued off topic.[/mod]