The R Word

[Shjade]

snip

Your example doesn't hold up. A more appropriate example would be I have a license to go hunting that there are animal rights activist that are offended by my activity. They have a right to be offended, but it doesn't stop me from being allowed to hunt.

Incorrect. You referred to a right to play a game (the gun), not the service (hunting).

If you want to talk about the service, you're still wrong: animal rights activists aren't hunting with you. A more accurate example would be that you have a license to go hunting, but you decide to shoot the other hunters out there with you because it's more fun than limiting yourself to shooting the animals you bought the license to hunt.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

So basically your right to be an asshole is more important than the right of a trauma victim to use a product he or she has paid money for without unduly suffering? Privilege much?

I have every right to say what I like and they have every right to chew me out and mute me. As for your privilege comment, whats wrong with having privilege?

Its not your job, its common courtesy.

The author states how that sort of language can trigger emotional flashbacks and depression. It saps the fun from the individual and makes it hard for them to enjoy any interaction with the game or event. All you have to ask yourself is do you think saying obvious trigger words are worth the risk of completely ruining someone's fun.

Again, I have the right to say such words and other people have the right to tell me off and mute me.

People aren't psychic and cannot know which gamers are going to say rape to them beforehand. How do you propose they avoid these situations if they can't know before the fact? Never play games again? Never get involved in media at all perhaps?

What? My entire argument is that people should be allowed to say what they want and that people who don't like it should just tell them off and mute them.

so whether you like it or not all sides are essentially talking about emotions here.

Great, but if your going to try to convince me to not use the word, then your going to have to do so without using appealing to emotion fallacies.

 

[Creatural]

Typical ≠ never used. Learn to read what I've written in response to you or don't bother making a response at all.

You don't like it? Don't respond.

THAT'S a fallacy, that is the thing you've been trying to claim we've all been doing all along. You are not addressing the actual arguments presented to you anymore. You are not using logic there, but it's understandable if you're finally using emotion in an argument about emotions.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

Your example doesn't hold up. A more appropriate example would be I have a license to go hunting that there are animal rights activist that are offended by my activity. They have a right to be offended, but it doesn't stop me from being allowed to hunt.

Incorrect. You referred to a right to play a game (the gun), not the service (hunting).

If you want to talk about the service, you're still wrong: animal rights activists aren't hunting with you. A more accurate example would be that you have a license to go hunting, but you decide to shoot the other hunters out there with you because it's more fun than limiting yourself to shooting the animals you bought the license to hunt.

No, no players are physically dieing from me saying the word "rape", so again your example fails.

 

[Creatural]

So basically your right to be an asshole is more important than the right of a trauma victim to use a product he or she has paid money for without unduly suffering? Privilege much?

I have every right to say what I like and they have every right to chew me out and mute me. As for your privilege comment, whats wrong with having privilege?

Its not your job, its common courtesy.

The author states how that sort of language can trigger emotional flashbacks and depression. It saps the fun from the individual and makes it hard for them to enjoy any interaction with the game or event. All you have to ask yourself is do you think saying obvious trigger words are worth the risk of completely ruining someone's fun.

Again, I have the right to say such words and other people have the right to tell me off and mute me.

People aren't psychic and cannot know which gamers are going to say rape to them beforehand. How do you propose they avoid these situations if they can't know before the fact? Never play games again? Never get involved in media at all perhaps?

What? My entire argument is that people should be allowed to say what they want and that people who don't like it should just tell them off and mute them.

so whether you like it or not all sides are essentially talking about emotions here.

Great, but if your going to try to convince me to not use the word, then your going to have to do so without using appealing to emotion fallacies.

I did, you ignored that.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Typical ≠ never used. Learn to read what I've written in response to you or don't bother making a response at all.

You don't like it? Don't respond.

THAT'S a fallacy, that is the thing you've been trying to claim we've all been doing all along. You are not addressing the actual arguments presented to you anymore. You are not using logic there, but it's understandable if you're finally using emotion in an argument about emotions.

You would be right if that was all I typed when I responded, but it wasn't. I elaborated on what I had to say. Try again.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I did, you ignored that.

No I didn't, you just told me about the feeling of others and attempted to make me feel bad about it. Try again.

 

[Shjade]

snip

Your example doesn't hold up. A more appropriate example would be I have a license to go hunting that there are animal rights activist that are offended by my activity. They have a right to be offended, but it doesn't stop me from being allowed to hunt.

Incorrect. You referred to a right to play a game (the gun), not the service (hunting).

If you want to talk about the service, you're still wrong: animal rights activists aren't hunting with you. A more accurate example would be that you have a license to go hunting, but you decide to shoot the other hunters out there with you because it's more fun than limiting yourself to shooting the animals you bought the license to hunt.

No, no players are physically dieing from me saying the word "rape", so again your example fails.

I never claimed you were shooting them to death, so again your reading comprehension fails. You are causing harm to other people via misuse of this word in a virtual "hunting" space in a manner comparable to harm you would do to other people via misuse of your firearm in a real hunting space. If you truly fail to understand the entire point of metaphoric explanation (i.e. comparisons that are not literally the same in order to convey a point), you should probably examine the concept before portraying yourself as a person who comprehends debate structure.

As an aside, I find it rather funny that you're throwing around "appeal to emotion" so often as if you think it will lend some kind of additional weight or intellectual value to your own position. The reason I find this funny is that your position is, itself, based on emotional reasoning. Specifically, you choose not to limit your freedom of expression because "it isn't fun." Not only an emotional (and selfish) reason, but an incredibly shallow emotion at that.

Your hypocrisy amuses me.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I never claimed you were shooting them to death, so again your reading comprehension fails.

..lol, ok. I guess I'm not killing them, just cause serious physical harm. Point still stands that your example doesn't hold up because I'm not physically harming someone like I would if I shot them.

As an aside, I find it rather funny that you're throwing around "appeal to emotion" so often as if you think it will lend some kind of additional weight or intellectual value to your own position. The reason I find this funny is that your position is, itself, based on emotional reasoning. Specifically, you choose not to limit your freedom of expression because "it isn't fun." Not only an emotional (and selfish) reason, but an incredibly shallow emotion at that.

Your hypocrisy amuses me.

Glad your amused, but my argument has been about my right to express myself.

 

[Creatural]

Typical ≠ never used. Learn to read what I've written in response to you or don't bother making a response at all.

You don't like it? Don't respond.

THAT'S a fallacy, that is the thing you've been trying to claim we've all been doing all along. You are not addressing the actual arguments presented to you anymore. You are not using logic there, but it's understandable if you're finally using emotion in an argument about emotions.

You would be right if that was all I typed when I responded, but it wasn't. I elaborated on what I had to say. Try again.

Ah, yes I can see that now, I ignored that earlier stuff since you had someone else quoted and I thought you were no long addressing me. It's very common to have that happen!

Then those people should remove themselves from situations where they can harm people. Also, it isn't my job to make sure that I don't offend people on the internet because they might be triggered by anything I say.


I am not Captain Karma.

CaptainKarma:

I would argue though that as this is a discussion about people using the word rape in an emotional way to begin with, a joke which is inherently about emotions (it's about making you feel elated after all if a joke's "good") is what we're discussing. We're discussing the way people use rape in a kind of joking or victorious way in games. The victorious expression is also about emotion as it's expressing a feeling of triumph.

There is no way this argument isn't about emotion. If your argument is that emotions shouldn't come in to play here that won't make sense since jokes and victory expression are inherently emotional things and taking away emotion from this does no one any good. It defeats the purpose of these things entirely.

Prove to me how a joke isn't about emotion (which includes relieving stress, an emotion, and bringing happiness, an emotion) or how a victory cry isn't filled with emotion and we can argue about how neither of them should be treated emotionally.

I don't have to prove anything. However if your going to make an argument that you want me to consider, you are going to have to avoid logic fallacies like appealing to emotion.

-THE ARGUMENT is not a logical one, you can't actually use a logical fallacy on an emotional argument. I've been trying to tell you this and you keep ignoring that. And if you want to win your argument you actually do have to prove your point.

Also, as some people don't know that they'll harm others before they're triggered this makes no sense.-

CaptainKarma:
Also, an emotional fallacy is a fallacy wherein I'd appeal to your emotions. I didn't. I gave you information on how most other people feel, based on statistics that I remember and personal experience, that doesn't automatically mean I'm appealing to your emotions. I'm not trying to make you cry. I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I'm just telling you how some people have felt. Don't use emotional fallacy when you don't know what it means.

You seem to be attempting to make me feel sorry for people and that pitty should be a reason why I shouldn't say the word rape. That is an appeal to emotion. Otherwise why tell me what other people think? Why should I do something just because other people are doing it?

-You should use words that make the most sense in context. Why would saying rape when you're not raping anyone be a good word choice? Why does that make sense at all?

And no, I'm not attempting to make you feel bad. I don't care about your feelings. I'm telling you what other people think as we exist in a society and since it's a human society other people's emotions tend to have an effect on things if you hadn't noticed. While you don't need to be moved by emotions yourself you need to understand them and that other people are moved by them.-

CaptainKarma:
Furthermore, if we're going to argue about emotions here, why do you want to use the word rape? Does it make you feel good? Do you like that word? What reason is there for you to use it other than an emotional attachment to it? It's just a word after all, and it doesn't even accurately describe what you're doing when you win a game against someone, so why use it?

I didn't say that people shouldn't use emotion when playing a game, just that you shouldn't use appeal to emotion fallacies when making an argument.

-I didn't say that you were saying that either though. I said the argument is about jokes and cries of victory. Those are emotional things. This argument is about emotion.

I think we're going to have to disagree simply because you're trying to use a logical argument in an emotional argument. On top of that you seem to believe people should know what's going on beforehand and I believe they can't nor can they know how they're going to respond beforehand.

ALSO, I apologize about the formatting of this html doesn't seem to be working as well for some reason.

 

[Daemian Lucifer]

*sigh*Ok,I dont want to sound hostile,but people talking like this really grind my nerves.

Our society has made it like rape is the worst crime ever.And if youve ever lost someone close to you,and seen the tears on the faces of others around you,the same tears you knew were on your face,youll know that its not.Where s the sympathy for me,for my family,for the people that were lost in the war that people dont even have the dignity to call war?Nowhere.And do you know why?Because people dont care about some ass country in the eastern europe.

And Im fine with that.Actually,Im fine with that until the point where people start tip toeing around others because "well you know theyve just been through a horrible experience".Ive been through a horrible experience and you dont hear me asking you to tip toe around me!And you know why?Because that was MY horrible experience,and I have no right to ask YOU to think about it.

I always found it extremely selfish when people are asking strangers to understand their pain.No they shouldnt.You should instead be grateful that there are people in the world who dont know what youve been trough.You shouldnt pray for them to understand you,you should pray for them to never have to understand you.Share your burden with those who have offered themselves to listen to you,not with people who have been lucky enough to not understand what youve been trough.

You act like its humane to be sympathetic to other peoples suffering,but where is your sympathy for people when you dare to saddle them with your horrible experiences?

You want to know about my horrible experience,you want me to share it with you?Great,Im thankful,and Ill share my misery,BUT IN PRIVATE.I wont go to public and ask from everyone to be supportive of me and understand my pain,because that would be selfish of me.

And I wont berate you for reminding me of my pain and my horrible experience,but I will berate you for asking everyone to feel sorry for you and asking them to try to understand you.If they didnt go trough what you went through,they will never understand you,and thats how it should be.You should strive for people never having to experience what youve experience,and not for everyone knowing how it feels like.

 

[MatsVS]

One thing has been made abundantly clear in this thread: Unexamined privilege is a poison that rots the soul.

 

[lacktheknack]

You know, the current crop of comments is making a forced utopia or 1984 scenario look preeeetty dang good.

OT: That was an excellent article, Anonymous. People often ignore that words are not just words.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

-THE ARGUMENT is not a logical one, you can't actually use a logical fallacy on an emotional argument. I've been trying to tell you this and you keep ignoring that. And if you want to win your argument you actually do have to prove your point.

This argument is about self censorship and you haven't convinced me why I should not be allowed to say what I want other than "it offends some people".

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

One thing has been made abundantly clear in this thread: Unexamined privilege is a poison that rots the soul.

You still haven't told me why privilege is a bad thing, but thanks for the silly comment.

 

[Ipsen]

I have every right to say what I like and they have every right to chew me out and mute me.

You know what? I'll stand with you on this. You DO have every right (in this country) to say what you want online. But I've stated it already, you better be ready to prostrate yourself in apology if you're going to say something so terrible, without care, because 'you have every right to'.

You walk the credibility of your humanity down a fine line if you feel you have to ***** about your rights here. Just don't fall off the wrong side.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

..lol, ok. I guess I'm not killing them, just cause serious physical harm. Point still stands that your example doesn't hold up because I'm not physically harming someone like I would if I shot them. Glad your amused, but my argument has been about my right to express myself.

So, it appears that your entire argument is based upon a remarkable lack of empathy, a personal characteristic that you seem to be extremely proud of for some reason. This article, and many others like it, isn't some pro-censorship battle-cry, but instead an appeal for civility. People have different emotional reactions to negative, traumatizing personal experiences, and it must be frustrating for some rape victims to see the term bandied about so freely without any care to the actual, real implications of that word. I know, I'm empathizing again (an act seen as a crippling flaw by some internet commenters), but I don't see how a personal plea for respect and courtesy is an attack against your right to personal expression.

But, since this discussion seems to be at an impasse, let's compromise. You can reserve the right to throw the word "rape" around as much as you want, and people not of like mind can reserve the right to call you a douchebag for it.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Its not your job, its common courtesy.

The author states how that sort of language can trigger emotional flashbacks and depression. It saps the fun from the individual and makes it hard for them to enjoy any interaction with the game or event. All you have to ask yourself is do you think saying obvious trigger words are worth the risk of completely ruining someone's fun.

Again, I have the right to say such words and other people have the right to tell me off and mute me.

I'm not disputing your right to say such words; I'm just trying to show the cost.

 

[Zydrate]

As for writing the article anonymously: recently several writers who have written on this or similar subjects have been harassed not only in the comments sections but on their blogs, on social media, by email, and even with having their Wikipedia pages defaced. I'd rather that not happen, thanks. Is it a little cowardly? Yeah, I think so, but I think it's also prudent.

Wise choice. And it's quite a shame you have to.

Greater Internet Fuckwad theory, and all of that.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

You know what? I'll stand with you on this. You DO have every right (in this country) to say what you want online. But I've stated it already, you better be ready to prostrate yourself in apology if you're going to say something so terrible, without care, because 'you have every right to'.

I don't have to apologizes for any trash talk I say on xbox live. As I have repeated before, if a person doesn't like it they can tell me off and mute me.

You walk the credibility of your humanity down a fine line if you feel you have to ***** about your rights here. Just don't fall off the wrong side.

I haven't caved into allowing others to make decisions for me, so I'm confident that I'm on the right side.

So, it appears that your entire argument is based upon a remarkable lack of empathy, a personal characteristic that you seem to be extremely proud of for some reason. This article, and many others like it, isn't some pro-censorship battle-cry, but instead an appeal for civility.

That is a nice way of saying appeal to emotion.

People have different emotional reactions to negative, traumatizing personal experiences, and it must be frustrating for some rape victims to see the term bandied about so freely without any care to the actual, real implications of that word. I know, I'm empathizing again (an act seen as a crippling flaw by some internet commenters), but I don't see how a personal plea for respect and courtesy is an attack against your right to personal expression.

Its an attack when you expect me to communicate and express myself based on your whims.

But, since this discussion seems to be at an impasse, let's compromise. You can reserve the right to throw the word "rape" around as much as you want, and people not of like mind can reserve the right to call you a douchebag for it.

Name calling? Very classy.