BiscuitTrouser said:
Bashfluff said:
My argument does not boil down to that. say what my position is right here: "I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous." Likewise, my argument does not boil down to, "the idea that its even bad to try and have control over what speech occurs in your owned arena."
Because my position is about the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language.
I do not understand how you can realize this: "People understand the social etiquette very well for how to behave in restaurants and formal competitions."
And not realize that gaming has a different social etiquette.
Once again, no. Dinner parties have a different culture surrounding them with a different set of behavioral expectations. If dinner parties had that culture, it would be unreasonable for me to be upset, because I set up the dinner party knowing what would likely happen at one.
For starters, debating is not trash talking. Argument is not the arena of trash talking. You're comparing different environments with different expectations. It's a meaningless comparison. It's be like saying that you should be okay with prayer in schools because you can pray in a Church and have it be acceptable. They are different environments with different expectations.
Because there's a gray area there. It's not "obvious abuse" and everything else. I believe that actually IS a fallacy to argue what you just did.
You've offended me countless times with your post. Guess it's not that simple, is it?
Abuse is not good, but trash talking is not abuse. If you want to have a special server for people who cannot handle interaction in the gaming community, fine. I would rather not have to play with these people anyway.
No points for passive aggressive sarcasm. Please stop. It demeans us both.
"I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous"
But in the context of the dinner party it ISNT rediculous. Thats a blanket statement there and you still havnt given a good answer to the scenario that doesnt involve:
Ejecting someone for using offensive language to offend
Accepting that in real life you would honestly do nothing to stop them attending future parties (ie permenant banning from said parties)
A third option that compromises both than im genuinely interested to hear.
I assert that there are some scenarios in which the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language
to a certain audience is not only perfectly fine but commonly practiced today by almost everyone. If your statement is true the behavioral expectations are irrelevant. There is offensive speech offending someone you dont want to get offended. You would remove that person. Therefor suppression based on offence. If its always ridiculous the context shouldnt matter.
The idea that gaming has one whole unified "social etiquette" is absurd. Whats the social etiquette for "dining" or "talking"? Such variation depending on expectation, like you stated. And yet you talk of gaming like a single unified thing. The idea im putting forward is that it isnt wrong to expect different etiquette in different places. Such places, like in my dining example, arose because people saw the niche in the market for those who prefer such etiquette and made rules to ensure thats what they would get. I see no complaint there, as such i dont understand the complaint here.
Debating is organised and structured arguing. Arguing, when done in a totally unstructured way usually involves a degree of trash talking or personal insults, i mean hell THIS argument had you passively aggressively insult me a few times. Yet the idea of debating as a structured activity results in better discussion because clear rules are set up. You get a better experience than totally unregulated jabbering (I mean look at 4chan then look here)
You used an example where it was wrong to deny the anti semetic the chance to be anti semetic. If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned. Do you accept its right to ban that speech here now? Or do you wish to boycott the escapist? The question still stands.
If you can prove that i actively seek to make your experience less enjoyable by offending you then ill agree you have a point. Show me where i offended you and justify the idea that my intent was to offend. Ill concede intent is important. Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious. Honestly we may be arguing about different perceived outcomes to this. The way i see it this change is targeting obvious abuse like this:
http://fatuglyorslutty.com/
Where intent is blatently malicious and with no hint of humor or simple "trash talking". Its just a constant wave of attacks from different people. That to me should be tackled more harshly.
People can handle interaction in the gaming community. They just want to redefine what that interaction means and should be.
"But in the context of the dinner party it ISNT rediculous. Thats a blanket statement there and you still havnt given a good answer to the scenario that doesnt involve:
Ejecting someone for using offensive language to offend
Accepting that in real life you would honestly do nothing to stop them attending future parties (ie permenant banning from said parties)
A third option that compromises both than im genuinely interested to hear."
I do think it is ridiculous that if someone said one offensive thing about your wife, you would instantly kick them out of your house and ban them from ever coming back. If they keep doing it after being told to stop, it becomes harassment, and at that point, yeah, kick them out. As I have said before, harassment is not okay with me.
"I assert that there are some scenarios in which the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language
to a certain audience is not only perfectly fine but commonly practiced today by almost everyone."
Name them.
"If your statement is true the behavioral expectations are irrelevant. There is offensive speech offending someone you dont want to get offended. You would remove that person. Therefor suppression based on offence. If its always ridiculous the context shouldnt matter."
No. In your scenario, someone is insulting my husband repeatedly. This isn't them saying something that could be taken offensively, or them making a joke at his expense, but insulting him and then continuing to do so. It's not just because they're offensive.
"The idea that gaming has one whole unified "social etiquette" is absurd. Whats the social etiquette for "dining" or "talking"?"
When you talk, it's socially acceptable that you not punch someone in the face, for instance. When you dine, you do not talk on your phone unless there is an emergency. There are loose rules, but there are rules. As you get more and more focused, the social etiquette is more firmly established, sure, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't always exist to some degree.
"The idea im putting forward is that it isnt wrong to expect different etiquette in different places. "
That's my point as well.
"Such places, like in my dining example, arose because people saw the niche in the market for those who prefer such etiquette and made rules to ensure thats what they would get. "
But they didn't do this at the detriment of another established market.
"You used an example where it was wrong to deny the anti semetic the chance to be anti semetic. If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned. Do you accept its right to ban that speech here now? Or do you wish to boycott the escapist? The question still stands."
No. I said that in Speech and Debate, it was viewed as more important to let the person who was speaking say whatever it was they had to say, provided it wasn't incredibly vulgar. It is not a blanket statement about what I do or do not find acceptable. Please read my posts.
" If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned."
Would you now? I remember someone freely espousing anti-gay speech on the R&P board not a few weeks ago without any repercussions.
"If you can prove that i actively seek to make your experience less enjoyable by offending you then ill agree you have a point. Show me where i offended you and justify the idea that my intent was to offend. Ill concede intent is important. Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious. Honestly we may be arguing about different perceived outcomes to this. The way i see it this change is targeting obvious abuse like this:"
Your statement being to say that offending people isn't hard, I have a point already.
" Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious."
No. A zero-tolerance policy toward any discriminatory remarks does NOT factor in intent.
" That to me should be tackled more harshly."
I agree.
"People can handle interaction in the gaming community. They just want to redefine what that interaction means and should be."
If you have to change that interaction, no, you can't handle that interaction.