The R Word

[Creatural]

-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".

No, I told you it's because people can respond violently and destroy someone's productivity. It's the same reason you can't shout fire in a theater in the U.S. People can be harmed in a stampede to the point where they may not be alive, or else may be alive but lose productivity for a time and may not do something important for society that they've needed to.

You just ignored those points by deciding people should know for sure who they're going to respond beforehand when they can't.

I'm not saying you should never ever say rape, but you need to not say it to everyone. You might make trigger someone to the point where they can't get their work done or worse commit suicide or hurt another person. And they won't plan on those things happening, nor have the knowledge to plan, before those things happen.

Why should you be allowed to say rape in the ways mentioned in the article when saying that may have these things as consequences?

I'm not saying you should never shout fire or say rape, but you need to think of the consequences of your actions and the context in which you say things.

And saying someone can just mute you doesn't work. The damage will be done before they can mute you.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

Ok, I see the cost and I respond that people should mute me if they don't like what I have to say.

 

[Danzavare]

You know, if people spent a tenth of the time they spend defending their 'right' to be obnoxious, dim and unnecessarily hurtful to instead expand their vocabulary and come up with some more clever trash-talk we wouldn't have a problem. : /

A few general and -hopefully- common sense things to point out for the thread responses:
~ 'Emotional fallacies!' - If you're trying to have a debate about human interactions without accounting for emotional capacities you are being irrational (particularly when the subject matter is the unnecessary emotional damage that comes from using a few unnecessary yet harmful words).
~ 'This means I have to watch everything I say!' - Yes and no. Yes, there are a select few words/phrases you -shouldn't- be using but you have thousands upon thousands of alternatives to pick from. Seriously, it's not as scary as people are making it sound.
~ 'Then why is it okay to use this other word!?' - Fine, from now on don't use that offensive other word either? Frags/points/victories/triumphs are just a few flexible replacement words in regards to gaming.
~ 'Shouldn't sensitive people just avoid situations where people can be rude!?' - Really? People should be denied gaming experiences because certain people choose to enact unnecessarily destructive behaviors? It's a ridiculous stance to take that wrongly treats problems in the gaming community as privileges.
- 'But bad feminists-!" - Shut up. Honestly, enough with the straw men. Any group of people can be made to look utterly stupid if we characterise them by their worst possible members. That, and this isn't strictly a feminist issue.

Anywho, great article that conveys sensitive material without sounding preachy. It's a shame that the crux of the issue is that people are being unnecessarily harmful in their language when so many better words and phrases exist.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Noooo, I told you it's because people can respond violently and destroy someone's productivity. It's the same reason you can't shout fire in a theater in the U.S. People can be harmed in a stampede to the point where they may not be alive, or else may be alive but lose productivity for a time and may not do something important for society that they've needed to.

Your continued use of examples that involve real life violence to this nonviolent situation still don't apply. Try again.

You just ignored those points by deciding people should know for sure who they're going to respond beforehand when they can't.

I'm not saying you should never ever say rape, but you need to not say it to everyone. You might make trigger someone to the point where they can't get their work done or worse commit suicide or hurt another person. And they won't plan on those things happening, nor have the knowledge to plan, before those things happen.

Why should you be allowed to say rape in the ways mentioned in the article when saying that may have these things as consequences?

Because I shouldn't be held accountable because for someone elses actions because they were offended. If a person kills another because I say "I just raped that last match!", they should go to prison, not me.

 

[lacktheknack]

A terrible article with dangerous ramifications, and I demand an opportunity to provide a counterpoint even though I know I will not be allowed one.

....provide it here maybe?

I'm on probation already and every time I provide an opinion contrary to the popular one I get reported.

You might want to work on your delivery? Or perhaps you should consider the opinions you have on things, and why the things you say might negatively affect people?

If those were the rules, "The R Word" article would never be posted as it is a request to limit free speech. But nobody considers that because my view is the minority and thus does not count.

He's not forcing anybody to not say anything. He's saying that you should think before you speak because you could *be hurting someone* with your words.

Buuuut I don't think you really get that, seeing as how you've said that an article about a man baring his soul about one of the most excruciating things that can happen to a human being is a "terrible article with dangerous ramifications."

That may be one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard somebody say.

And yet... somehow... they SAID THEM ANYWAYS.

If they were REALLY unable to say things like that, THERE WOULD BE NO SONG.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

Name calling? Very classy.

If the hat fits, and it certainly fits right now. Also: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

I have alternatives but I have the right to say what I want, regardless if you like it or not.

As for playing games, they can play them and mute me if they don't like me.

No comments on feminism.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Name calling? Very classy.

If the hat fits, and it certainly fits right now. Also: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Hat doesn't seem to fit, fancy that.

Also:Its fun to be allowed to express yourself, huh?

 

[Creatural]

Noooo, I told you it's because people can respond violently and destroy someone's productivity. It's the same reason you can't shout fire in a theater in the U.S. People can be harmed in a stampede to the point where they may not be alive, or else may be alive but lose productivity for a time and may not do something important for society that they've needed to.

Your continued use of examples that involve real life violence to this nonviolent situation still don't apply. Try again.

You just ignored those points by deciding people should know for sure who they're going to respond beforehand when they can't.

I'm not saying you should never ever say rape, but you need to not say it to everyone. You might make trigger someone to the point where they can't get their work done or worse commit suicide or hurt another person. And they won't plan on those things happening, nor have the knowledge to plan, before those things happen.

Why should you be allowed to say rape in the ways mentioned in the article when saying that may have these things as consequences?

Because I shouldn't be held accountable because for someone elses actions because they were offended. If a person kills another because I say "I just raped that last match!", they should go to prison, not me.

I told you they might commit suicide over being triggered. Stop ignoring my examples of real world violence like that or things like that in general. Also, most abusers are victims of some kind of abuse themselves and this includes rape. I'm not using fake examples and these are not nonviolent. They are very violent.

And again, it's not being offended, a trigger literally changes the chemistry in someone's brain. PTSD does more than offend someone. If it was just offending someone I'd say because it offends people. Actually, I wouldn't even say that, I wouldn't care if it was just offending someone.

And I wasn't saying you should go to prison for saying that as long as you didn't make anyone do something harmful, but if you triggered someone to the point they killed themselves, when you knew it could trigger someone, I would think that people should put you in jail, yes. You're part of society and subject to its rules and that means caring about other people enough to not be damaging to them.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

A terrible article with dangerous ramifications, and I demand an opportunity to provide a counterpoint even though I know I will not be allowed one.

....provide it here maybe?

I'm on probation already and every time I provide an opinion contrary to the popular one I get reported.

You might want to work on your delivery? Or perhaps you should consider the opinions you have on things, and why the things you say might negatively affect people?

If those were the rules, "The R Word" article would never be posted as it is a request to limit free speech. But nobody considers that because my view is the minority and thus does not count.

He's not forcing anybody to not say anything. He's saying that you should think before you speak because you could *be hurting someone* with your words.

Buuuut I don't think you really get that, seeing as how you've said that an article about a man baring his soul about one of the most excruciating things that can happen to a human being is a "terrible article with dangerous ramifications."

That may be one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard somebody say.

Not really helping your case against you being a terrible person, bucko.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

Also:Its fun to be allowed to express yourself, huh?

It must also be fun playing an edgy, straight shootin', truth-telling internet personality who looks at a poignant, personal account about rape and society and says, "What about me?! I like saying rape a lot!"

 

[lacktheknack]

A terrible article with dangerous ramifications, and I demand an opportunity to provide a counterpoint even though I know I will not be allowed one.

....provide it here maybe?

I'm on probation already and every time I provide an opinion contrary to the popular one I get reported.

You might want to work on your delivery? Or perhaps you should consider the opinions you have on things, and why the things you say might negatively affect people?

If those were the rules, "The R Word" article would never be posted as it is a request to limit free speech. But nobody considers that because my view is the minority and thus does not count.

He's not forcing anybody to not say anything. He's saying that you should think before you speak because you could *be hurting someone* with your words.

Buuuut I don't think you really get that, seeing as how you've said that an article about a man baring his soul about one of the most excruciating things that can happen to a human being is a "terrible article with dangerous ramifications."

That may be one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard somebody say.

And yet... somehow... they SAID THEM ANYWAYS.

If they were REALLY unable to say things like that, THERE WOULD BE NO SONG.

There's a reason I didn't post the actual video. It's heavily censored and the nude images of the band members would likely get me banned.

The existence of a more graphic video doesn't actually help your case... it hurts it.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I told you they might commit suicide over being triggered.

Then people who are suicidal should not be playing such games.

Also, most abusers are victims of some kind of abuse themselves and this includes rape. I'm not using fake examples and these are not nonviolent. They are very violent.

Then again, violent people should be watched and not playing games that might set them off.

And again, it's not being offended, a trigger literally changes the chemistry in someone's brain. PTSD does more than offend someone. If it was just offending someone I'd say because it offends people.

And I'm not going to walk on eggshells because somebody might have PTSD.

And I wasn't saying you should go to prison for saying that as long as you didn't make anyone do something harmful, but if you triggered someone to the point they killed themselves, when you knew it could trigger someone, I would think that people should put you in jail, yes.

Luckily your not running the judicial system.

You're part of society and subject to its rules and that means caring about other people enough to not be damaging to them.

I don't have the expectation to walk on egg shells.

 

[Danzavare]

snip

I have alternatives but I have the right to say what I want, regardless if you like it or not.

As for playing games, they can play them and mute me if they don't like me.

No comments on feminism.

I know, my arguments are a 'should' not 'have to' matter. I mean, you also have the right to say nothing but utterly stupid things. I wouldn't suggest it, there are plenty of intuitive and practical reasons why you shouldn't, but you still have the right to.

They can, but it shouldn't have to come to that.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not calling you stupid. I just mean to say not everything we 'can' do is something we 'should' do.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Also:Its fun to be allowed to express yourself, huh?

It must also be fun playing an edgy, straight shootin', truth-telling internet personality who looks at a poignant, personal account about rape and society and says, "What about me?! I like saying rape a lot!"

So do you have anything or worth to contribute, or are you too busy attacking my character?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

I have alternatives but I have the right to say what I want, regardless if you like it or not.

As for playing games, they can play them and mute me if they don't like me.

No comments on feminism.

I know, my arguments are a 'should' not 'have to' matter. I mean, you also have the right to say nothing but utterly stupid things. I wouldn't suggest it, there are plenty of intuitive and practical reasons why you shouldn't, but you still have the right to.

They can, but it shouldn't have to come to that.

And I wouldn't suggest that you advocate that I should conduct myself according to your whims.

Thats your opinion I guess, I disagree.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

Reading through your argument, I'm certain that your character is at the heart of this entire issue.

 

[Callate]

Color me torn.

I really hate that anyone should ever do something to someone like the author described. That someone should do something like that to a child makes my blood boil. There are people close to me who have described similar experiences, and I suppose when it comes right down to it, I really can't entirely grasp the mindset such an event must cast over someone who has been a victim of sexual abuse.

And, yet...

Without going into detail, I've on more than one occasion seen people who portrayed themselves as victims demand the right to dictate the terms of any discussion tangentially related to what they viewed as their victimization, and my deeply felt response is, "no". No, you do not have that right.

I would never want to see a person of an Islamic faith become the target of slurs and violence because of that faith, but I will not lend condemnation to someone drawing an image of Mohammed because it might offend that person. I don't bristle with anger because Robert Downey Jr. used the words "full retard" in Tropic Thunder or because Chris Heimsworth made a joke related to adoption in The Avengers, and frankly I refuse to take such overbaked ire seriously. PETA's "chicken coops are like Nazi concentration camps" ad campaign makes me want to hurt the people responsible for their complete lack of perspective.

Someone once noted that for the vast majority of people, peanuts are an inexpensive and highly nutritious foodstuff. For a rare, tiny percentage, they're certain death. That's really unfortunate, and I don't want to see those people die- but I also don't feel it's remotely appropriate to put the majority of the onus for those people's safety on everybody else, especially if that comes hand in hand with an attitude that the allergic people should get to remain anonymous with the masses while everyone else bans peanuts from the table "just in case".

I recognize that it took courage for the author to write this article, and surely cost him something with regard to his emotional endurance. I welcome this as a contribution to the discussion, and to be clear, it's absolutely of far more value than some XBox Live player's "right" to make sexually explicit and derogatory comments on a whim in anonymity.

But the world is full of people's triggers, and I'm not even going to pretend to live life like I'm walking through a minefield.