Moderating offensive language

[Husxle]

Can you go up to a secret service guard outside the white house and say that you are having the president's entrails for dinner today and just walk away? Ya think???

You can't say w/e the hell you want. Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Is that how you personally think things should be, or are you saying that's how things actually are? Because that's not how things actually are, and for actual reasons that you apparently show no understanding for. You have totally misinterpreted not only the judicial on freedom of speech, but the very principle at the bottom even. The idea is not that you can say whatever you want. That was never the idea with freedom of speech. The idea is to spare free thinking from tyranny. That has nothing to do with your interpretation of the concept, which seems to be something like "if shutting up is inconvenient or you simply don't want to, then don't".

We were talking about a word, not death threats fool.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

[2pacremix]

Black people use the word. no one else can? why not? freedom of speech includes its use.

[adoutlaw]

Personally I don’t think white people shouldnt use it on the same way how am I supposed to know a members colour without a pic of them

[2pacremix]

Personally I don’t think white people shouldnt use it on the same way how am I supposed to know a members colour without a pic of them

can you simplify this? you saying White people can say the word?

[2psah]

This social justice bullshit is destroying people their minds.

Honestly, new Hitlers are being created in universities around the world these days..

Oversensitive fragile pieces of shit.

[Dominator]

When was I ever false?

That has always been the issue with you. I remember our discussions very vividly, or should I say 'you expressing your train of thoughts in super arrogant manner'? You think only your ideas, opinions, point of views are solely correct and everybody else is wrong. Nobody disagrees with you here, but they don't fully agree with you either and expressed valid points. Did you reply to them? No. This kind of narcissism doesn't "improve the quality of communication" at all and never did in our AIM chitchats.

What's the purpose of this discussion anyway? Like Klockwork said, this is the Internet. Most people here do a role play in one way or another, even you, me. Do you think you could change the world by setting strict rules on a niche message board? Should staff censor the word "nigga" or ban people when they ask questions about 2Pac songs such as "Fuckin' With The Wrong Nigga" or "Niggaz In The Pen"? lmao

I think you are exaggerating. You literally brought up one example of that treyson fool and blew it up to an accusation this forum would encourage white people to say "nigga". As you see this user's reputation is bloody red already and he's been warned by mods before, so obviously this forum does not agree with his behavior.

You defending white people's right to say "nigga"? Cause you said in your post that you don't support it, so what then, you just had to come and point out to me how weird it is that I'm white and offended by this?

I just thought it was funny. If you decide to stand up for the black community isn't this just another form of white man ruling over black people's opinion? Deciding how they have to feel? This is even worse lol

Why can't we just leave the personal out of things?

Says the guy that just made as many personal insults.

About the rest, yea whatever, nobody's perfect

[Proletarian]

If the police don't arrest criminals then that would mean that crime is encouraged.

I don't think I agree with this...

Criminals are economically rewarded for crime, under a system that labels you worthless if you don't have money: crime is encouraged whether or not the police arrest criminals.

In the same way that rape is encouraged if no one speaks out against it.

Is it though?

Is me punching you in the face encouraged if we don't speak against it? Or is it the commodification of people that encourages a lack of respect/empathy for ourselves and others (i.e., alienation)?



edit:

I didn't realise that there were a few posts already made in response to your posts when I posted. I'm not jumping on any anti Preach train: I'm just questioning these two analogies in isolation from your main argument.

[Slut]

The PC culture makes me sick. It's cool to be a whiny wimp now? The right to get offended over everything should be revoked. I suggest the following: let's not try hard to get offended and we'll all be fine.

That being said, why bother using words that may offend others?


Let's think about rap for a second. The music is full of N words. Are non-black fans not allowed to sing along? The white kids, who rap along to their favorite rap song, are racists? Really? We have never had any black slaves in the country I live in. I was maybe 20 or so when I saw the first black person in this country. If someone over here says the N word, it is most likely a rap fan, not a racist. There are totally different racist words that have no link to the N word originating from the US.

I've now been listening to Pac's music for more than 2 decades. If I now type a song title that contains the N word, I'm offending someone? That would turn me into a racist in someone's eyes?

[2pacremix]

.........................

[adoutlaw]

can you simplify this? you saying White people can say the word?

Sorry auto correct I meant they shouldn’t use the word

[Preach]

That has always been the issue with you. I remember our discussions very vividly, or should I say 'you expressing your train of thoughts in super arrogant manner'? You think only your ideas, opinions, point of views are solely correct and everybody else is wrong. Nobody disagrees with you here, but they don't fully agree with you either and expressed valid points. Did you reply to them? No. This kind of narcissism doesn't "improve the quality of communication" at all and never did in our AIM chitchats.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Freud, but you're off the mark. I don't automatically, or even non-automatically assume I'm correct about a lot of things. I don't know how you ever got that idea, but it's far from how I've ever felt, so I don't even take your description of me serious. Are you insecure? I mean, not to get all philosophical on you, but you could argue that what I believe, however flawed it is, is the only truth I know. And so speaking that truth proudly and forthrightly is the only way to test my truth against the truths of others. I have been wrong many times, and have consequently forfeited ideas that I once believed in, but here's the key thing - it mostly never happens because someone doesn't know how to deal with people that are like that, and go on personal tirades about how arrogant they are. You're not exactly a pillar of humility yourself, as you go on and reduce all that I am to a few memories you have from being a teenager and chatting on an online service. For the record, I was probably so high I was blown out of my mind 80% of those times, so a lot of the shit I said was misconstrued "humor" or whatever, but fine. By the way, I said FALSE. What you described is nowhere near the definition of what "false" means, and I said I've never been false. I never had a problem with you so I'm not sure what I ever did to offend you so, but great that you took the chance to establish that you don't like me. That's fine.

Most people other than you have been responding with pretty much a similar variant of what somebody else said, so I assumed that my response to one iteration of that stance ("why do you care, let people say what they want") would be read by anyone that bothered to keep following the thread as a response to any variation of that stance. Should I tag every person or what exactly do think is necessitated to not come off as arrogant and narcisstic?

What's the purpose of this discussion anyway? Like Klockwork said, this is the Internet. Most people here do a role play in one way or another, even you, me. Do you think you could change the world by setting strict rules on a niche message board? Should staff censor the word "nigga" or ban people when they ask questions about 2Pac songs such as "Fuckin' With The Wrong Nigga" or "Niggaz In The Pen"? lmao

I think you are exaggerating. You literally brought up one example of that treyson fool and blew it up to an accusation this forum would encourage white people to say "nigga". As you see this user's reputation is bloody red already and he's been warned by mods before, so obviously this forum does not agree with his behavior.

I just thought it was funny. If you decide to stand up for the black community isn't this just another form of white man ruling over black people's opinion? Deciding how they have to feel? This is even worse lol

While you may have a point about me exaggerating this on some level or another, first of all, that guy has more than just a single post, although I only mentioned that post namely. His N-bomb posts are plentiful, and generally the shit he goes about saying sounds so much like a troll it could be argued that it's not just the fact that he's using that word that's a problem.

But you're also making a logical mistake when you assume that this has to do with trying to change the world or trying to decide over others. When you argue like that, I need to remind you that there are already rules in place on this forum. So then, that argument would have to be drawn to the discussion of every single rule already in place. Is the rule of having no insults or beef in threads about changing the world and deciding over others? Why exactly are those rules there? I mean, surely even though you think I'm a narcissist and apparently loathe to acknowledge that I could ever be right about anything, surely we could agree that a certain level of order is useful in a lot of places, namely when running a community?

I'm not personally offended by the use of it. It's not that I get mad on behalf of someone else that gets offended. It's just that I truly believe having people like that dude going around trolling like they do is on the level of having beef flooding threads everywhere when it comes to how it's detrimental for the community.

Says the guy that just made as many personal insults.

About the rest, yea whatever, nobody's perfect

Let me remind you of the order of how this has played out so far: I make a thread which boils down to a question of morals and ethics, and how they are projected through the community, by citing an example that's clearly over the line. I don't think anyone disagrees that what he said wasn't A-okay, though not everyone agrees that it should be a penable offense. You come into the thread, which is about a specific abstract topic, and start making personal remarks about me - how it's weird that it's always a white guy - and base your detractions to the point discussed on those personal remarks. I guess it's also weird that most of the prominent members of the Tupac fan scene is, and have been white americans and europeans. So statistically, the fact that anything anyone says on the scene is highly likely to be a white person doesn't cross your mind, neither does the fact that I could have a point or not. You just go straight for my throat. So then I'm personal in my response to your personal reply in my non-personal thread. That's weird to you? You started being personal, and so I ask, why does it have to be personal. I wasn't saying anything personal about you at any point until you drew it down to that level between the two of us.

[Preach]

This social justice bullshit is destroying people their minds.

Honestly, new Hitlers are being created in universities around the world these days..

Oversensitive fragile pieces of shit.

What makes you think this is about being sensitive or catching feelings? Is that the only way somebody could be against something? You don't believe in higher principles?

[Husxle]

What makes you think this is about being sensitive or catching feelings? Is that the only way somebody could be against something? You don't believe in higher principles?

You're obviously extremely sensitive, lol.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

[Preach]

I don't think I agree with this...

Criminals are economically rewarded for crime, under a system that labels you worthless if you don't have money: crime is encouraged whether or not the police arrest criminals.


Is it though?

Is me punching you in the face encouraged if we don't speak against it? Or is it the commodification of people that encourages a lack of respect/empathy for ourselves and others (i.e., alienation)?



edit:

I didn't realise that there were a few posts already made in response to your posts when I posted. I'm not jumping on any anti Preach train: I'm just questioning these two analogies in isolation from your main argument.

Well, it's a semantical discussion for sure, but let's at least agree that having no one speak out against something, and having no set of rules against something, certianly doesn't discourage it. I guess there are a lot of behaviors that are both natural to humans, and identifiably detrimental to social stability. I've always percieved the whole notion of a "law" or "rule" to be a guideline to prohibit those behaviors and safeguard the stability. So, when you know that humans can tend towards a certain behavior, say any kind of crime that gives you some kind of benefit or reward, what you in fact also know is that if you don't employ some kind of system to discourage those behaviors, they will be more strongly represented. So, when you have that knowledge and don't employ a system of discouragement, is that encouraging? Well, however we define it, like you said, that would be somewhat isolated from my main point. Maybe you're more right than me on the true definitions, but you surely get what I'm getting at.

As for the punching, alright, that's a little bit more complex, because it's also governed by hundreds of psycological phenomenae, but again, I'll use the example I already used to counter your question. If there is no system of discouragement, which is a very general term, but for most intents and purposes what I mean would be a rule/penalty solution, but without such a system, you get stronger representation of natural tendencies. If punching one another in the face is a natural tendency, which a lot of things seem to suggest that it is, then having no system of discouragement means higher representation. What do you do about that? Nothing?

[Preach]

You're obviously extremely sensitive, lol.

Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk

Laughing out loud with you.