Doesn't matter. It should stop.illas said:I agreed with Bob right up to the point of using "rape" as a descriptor.
In the standard gaming scenario, "rape" is not being used to describe what literally happened. Typically, is being used hyperbolically to describe the incident eg: in the case of a vicious, unjustifiable, penetrative assault. Criticising it on this level seems odd, since we don't complain about using "killed", "owned", "butchered" or "destroyed" in such a circumstance (and if one is interpreting it literally, murder is equally - if not more - serious than rape).
Furthermore, rape is not an intrinsically female-victim issue either. I would go as far as to suggest that one guy saying "I raped you" to another guy to be more a homosexual threat characterized by desires of non-gender-specific sexual dominance than a product of male-on-female rape being glamorised.
The point about free speech was brilliant though, most Americans (it seems) would do well to heed that. Most noticeably, the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for it.
Rape is not intrinsically female victim issue, but it is (quite justifiably) a far more emotive issue for women. Because, to put it bluntly, women suffer it hugely more. Couple this with the fact that men generally display significantly lower fear of violence or physical attack (despite being overwhelmingly more likely to suffer it) and you are left with a predictable outcome. Although rape happens to men, men simply do not fear it. Men have no reason to believe it will happen to them, and normally they're right.illas said:snip
The burden to change behavior should not fall on the innocents.Volf said:Why should people have to censor themselves when their playing things like Xbox live? Last I checked, you can mute peoplePunch You said:It isn't okay to enjoy your hobby while degrading women and making other members of your hobby look like dicks who you assume share your messed-up view of the world.
Nothing (and I repeat; NOTHING) cause harm "by necessity", even a gunshot-wound to the head can miraculously do more good than harm (in some convoluted way), but it is, as it is with everything else, the likelihood of something causing harm that we debate. And since racial slurs and bigoted speech are more likely than not in most occasions to cause harm, it is to be frowned (i.e faced with legal action) upon.Father Time said:Main thing I disagree with is the implication that racial slurs and bigoted speech necessarily cause harm and thus should be immune to 1st amendment protections (if that's not what you were getting at, I apologize).