GUA Twitch

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[princeofcarthage]

Sure GS, I agree with you on that. Justify to me how using 'thats gay' as an insult or jest stops you from properly expressing your opinion or truth except in its literal case where I believe it is fine.

[deleted_user]

Thread needs @umeu to speak some needed sense. C̶h̶r̶i̶s̶t̶ Jeez.

[harcha]

i think this thread should be deleted when gua gets unbanned

[deleted_user]

Layers of irony is an antiquated model. We should switch to a spectrum of intention. Bramboy I think, based on being in twitch chats (an easier medium to speak your more opinionated thoughts), is 75% genuine; however, part of the genuineness is because of an ulterior motive to remove off topic all together, seemingly to transition ESOC into a friendlier, strictly aoe site for AoE4 (potentials to make a profit, after all? Who knows).

[Dolan]

Why would you consciously not avoid offending anyone? Seems to me literal definition of an asshole.

Where does this end, really? Do we need to make like a catalogue of every conceivable word or phrase that someone might find offensive or they could claim to be offensive, so that we avoid significant portions of our language just because we need to first hold a vote on what we allow ourselves to say?

I'd rather like to see people build that resilience which will free them from any hurt a word could inflict on them, rather than live at the mercy of other people's thoughtfulness. This will make them grow, rather than continuing to live in fear, always dependent on the existence of thoughtful others or the right, accommodating environment.

[deleted_user]

Hate *clap* Speech *clap* Normalizes *clap* Hate *clap*

[zoom]

Also I agree headkilla, but anytime I say something like thats gay, or call someone a faggot for doing a lame strat, its never a homophobic type of insult, its just a another way of saying fuck or bitch or something like that.

Mentioning you say "gay" or "faggot" when you mean "fuck" or "bitch" is just making it worse, to be honest.

He was trying to explain to you the sense in which he uses the term(s). Saying that you think it would be better if he was expressing actual homophobia is just making it worse, to be honest.

[bittersalt123]

Heterosexuals aren't ostracized, persecuted, etc. so it is less likely that people would take offense to that. But sure, if someone was using the term "hetero" to describe something negative, then I could see how that could be hurtful to some people.

Idk I think I can imagine a situation in which I'd be living in a society that is majoritarily homosexual and if someone called me a "hetero" pejoratively, I don't think I'd feel offended. I think this sensitivity to offense doesn't come just from minority stress, as you're implying, but primarily from the nature of this identity. There has been some brain research which pointed out that gays tend to have an over-reactive amygdala, a brain region that is also involved in giving you anxiety.

Well reading the news I come across articles where LGBT people are beaten up and them being that way has negative implications socially in many places. I think if anyone faced that kinda threat they would have "an over-reactive amygdala, a brain region that is also involved in giving you anxiety."

[Dolan]

Hate *clap* Speech *clap* Normalizes *clap* Hate *clap*

Welp, stifling speech won't change their minds either. Those words only hold power as long as they are forbidden, imo. Might as well let them express it and consume it.

[Dolan]

@bittersalt123 True, but the study was done on people living in a developed country, in a largely threat-free environment.

[Goodspeed]

Depending on your definition of "largely", you could argue that. But even developed countries are certainly not threat-free for LGBTQ people. Any study trying to draw conclusions about their inherent "level of anxiety" would need to control for that. I doubt they did.

[bittersalt123]

@bittersalt123 True, but the study was done on people living in a developed country, in a largely threat-free environment.

I'd like to see this study but I'm just saying this group does have a lot of people that absolutely hate them compared to other groups of people.

[Dolan]

http://reberlab.psych.northwestern.edu/ ... BN2007.pdf

[bittersalt123]

http://reberlab.psych.northwestern.edu/ ... BN2007.pdf

Kinda browsed through it and I don't think it's about what threats they don't experience in society. I agree with the anxiety part I'm not disputing for the reasons I gave.

[deleted_user]

I bet the black American community loved it when the white community called them niggers because at least they weren't getting lynched and murdered. Once the white community stopped lynching and murdering them for no reason and once racism went away, calling a black member of the community nigger became OK, in fact, even encouraged, so that they might grow from it. And as a result, the white community members who still called the black community niggers didn't attribute to that racism that didn't go away.

I bet when Matthew Shepard was tortured and beaten to death for being a faggot queer, once his killers were convicted and homophobia went away, Matthew Shepard's friends didn't mind being called faggot queers. Homophobia actually went away when, 11 years later, the Supreme Court ruled gender, gender affiliation, and sexual orientation discrimination hate crimes in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Now I make it a point to call any flamboyant male a faggot queer to toughen his skin. Don't worry, no one is getting the wrong idea from that. Oh my kid is in the backseat. Son? Faggots deserve to be called queers - it's good for them! Why do we call them that? No, nothing's wrong with that, we just use the word that says something is wrong with that.

I bet after Hitler splat his brains and the concentration camps were liberated and the Jews and gypsies and everyone else were no longer persecuted and being gassed by the millions, they liked being called kikes. Wait, no, no one likes it. Callen you're getting it all wrong. I know it's best for them. I bet when any disparaged person is called a slur nothing else ever happens. Their property doesn't get damaged or no threats are made against them. Words aren't threats? Words can't incite? Only actions matter, and try linking that back to a word.

Oh no, my child killed themselves from incessant verbal bullying at school. That fucker just had thin skin, good riddance! The weak die so the strong survive.

These are extreme examples.

It can also be this simple. I call something retarded in aggravation. A person whose general disposition I value politely asks I not use that word. Obliging costs me nothing, affects me not. Her sister is mentally challenged and lives a happy life. She works with the mentally challenged in a country where they are otherwise left to die in the forest because of antiquated demonic myths. The use of the word causes her discomfort and sadness. The use of the word retarded w/r/t a mentally challenged person is not integral for any discussion I could much imagine on the topic (sans such a thing as this), there are always substitutes, and it does me no harm to use substitutes. It is not an irreplaceable term. It in no way affects my information output in terms of contents, only in effect. What is gained from that effect? What is lost? Nothing real is lost, and something is gained. If their disposition I do not like, I act in spite.

In the extreme examples above, now more or less socially unacceptable, this has led to a weaker population in your view? A degradation of society from a reduction in its harm sustained? This is a twisted conclusion, logically inconsistent, and lacks evidence,

spoiler

(societal acts of genius, nation wealth, global prosperity have increased concurrent a reduction of use of slurs, verbal abuse is not the one missing puzzle piece of adversity, is it? evidence aside from anectdotes?)

but is surely more plausible than purporting the elimination of such terms, the act of which includes no negative cost in terms of content, affects speech and "sanitizes" discussion, so to speak. Where is the intellectual or moral loss? Where is the intellectual or moral gain? Only the moral gain is affected.

If advocating for harm as necessary for growth, wherein is the line (I asked earlier)? If we may, with good sense, assume harm will never be eliminated, we needn't fear the utter absolution of this driving force. And we may extend the opposite so as to incur bodily harm, torture, upon members to stimulate their growth (an absurd argument which I know you are not supporting) - wherein is the line? If only between tangible and intangible, wherein is this line? If verbal attacks manifest into physical harm, wherein is the line? If words are words but words are threats, and I threaten you and your family - wherein is the line? Must you wait for action, or call the authorities? Is the latter an act of concedence, too weak to protect? Is a slur not a threat? May I incite violence with words only as Manson did, and if my impressionable listeners carried the violence out, who is at fault - wherein is the line? If I humiliate a person to the point of tears, is it their fault? If not, what have they gained? They go home and hurt themselves or a spouse or a child - straws on camels' backs. If I hit a person with a bat, they should've been faster and moved away. If I keep hitting them with the bat they'll get faster and move away. I should have hit them with the bat when they were younger so they'd move away now. What is the risk:reward ratio here, anyways? Quantifiable? All is neurons in brains.

A person goes to the gym to lift weights. In the process they break down their muscle fibers, which regrow stronger. A person is unfortunately captured and held prisoner without justification. They are assigned manual labor and they break down their muscle fibers, which regrow stronger. We do not need unjustified harm to incur growth. We can broach uncomfortable topics in a controlled environment.

Lastly, as you yourself have admitted in this thread, life is full of endless struggle. Would not each person be better relieved to suffer less of it at the hands of senseless verbal abuse, even if he can tolerate it?

The solution, as I see it, is simple: it involves eliminating a few words from one's vocabulary at no cost, to avoid one instance of (endless) harm, a benefit. Even when it's a bit fucking much and you don't ideologically agree, one can oblige and discuss the topic with substituted terms. This does not affect debate, debate being the contents of speech. On the flip side, it is very difficult to extradite oneself from the immoral implications of demonstrated history and practice the usage of such terms incurs.

P.S., because pronoun usage seems to be the most attacked part of this debate today, I've ignored it because you've (correct me if I'm wrong) taken a much more aggressive stance than mere pronoun usage. I live in one of the most "SJW" parts of the nation and haven't once met a non-binary specific pronoun user (anecdote, of the caliber of journalism these days anyways). That is the greyest area I have in this regard, personally undecided, but I guess I'd accommodate if I did meet someone like that. Why not? Doesn't hurt me. 98% of these other terms have more impact - are actual slurs against ethnicities and races and sexualities.

At no point did I ever endorse a state-sanctioned censorship of speech. My arguments are strictly of a moral sense.

[zoom]

More fundamentally, accepting that people may be different than you would certainly help. When confronted with a dissenting opinion or perspective, an open-minded person engages with it. A closed-minded person ignores it. A judgmental person not only ignores it but immediately vocalizes their disdain for the person expressing it. And yeah, if you read 2 of someone's posts and decide you're not reading any more, then go on to call them "one of the worst people here", you're looking pretty judgmental. But maybe I shouldn't have taken your words that literally.

hmm. I do this sometimes

I wonder what an open-minded person does, when someone proves thoroughly unsympathetic towards the subject.

[edeholland]

Also I agree headkilla, but anytime I say something like thats gay, or call someone a faggot for doing a lame strat, its never a homophobic type of insult, its just a another way of saying fuck or bitch or something like that.

Mentioning you say "gay" or "faggot" when you mean "fuck" or "bitch" is just making it worse, to be honest.

He was trying to explain to you the sense in which he uses the term(s). Saying that you think it would be better if he was expressing actual homophobia is just making it worse, to be honest.

Good thing I didn't say that.

[fightinfrenchman]

@deleted_user4 Now that's a post that deserves ESOC Gold

[princeofcarthage]

Why would you consciously not avoid offending anyone? Seems to me literal definition of an asshole.

Where does this end, really? Do we need to make like a catalogue of every conceivable word or phrase that someone might find offensive or they could claim to be offensive, so that we avoid significant portions of our language just because we need to first hold a vote on what we allow ourselves to say?

I'd rather like to see people build that resilience which will free them from any hurt a word could inflict on them, rather than live at the mercy of other people's thoughtfulness. This will make them grow, rather than continuing to live in fear, always dependent on the existence of thoughtful others or the right, accommodating environment.

This doesn't stop anywhere really. We already follow certain things which should fall under freedom of speech/expression/action. This concept isn't something new. You don't do Nazi salute in Germany or anywhere rather cuz it hurts/offends people. I could argue it is my freedom of expression. In Japan tattoos in certain traditional places are considered taboo. Victory sign (V with 2 fingers) is considered offensive in certain country ( I don't remember right now which ). People are always going to get triggered/offended because of such actions as they are directly related to them. By asking to be resilient you are practically asking people to be emotionless. It is a cycle which repeats. Few years down the line something else will be more unacceptable and today's stuff will be more open. It is not even a human thing. It is natural cycle and no amount of your argument is going to change that. 'Fair', 'Right', 'Moral', 'Immoral', ' Laws', all this stuff at the end of day is human and subjective at best.

You are so vocal and arguing about this is cuz it is tolerated at this site. Any other forums for same discussions except which are explicitly for this you would most likely be banned. You are so narcissist that you have no empathy. If you consider yourself so right and everyone else wrong, I want to see you saying the N word publicly or whatever the gay insult in front of gay people and then argue your Freedom.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[jap_jon]

Why would you consciously not avoid offending anyone? Seems to me literal definition of an asshole.

Where does this end, really? Do we need to make like a catalogue of every conceivable word or phrase that someone might find offensive or they could claim to be offensive, so that we avoid significant portions of our language just because we need to first hold a vote on what we allow ourselves to say?

I'd rather like to see people build that resilience which will free them from any hurt a word could inflict on them, rather than live at the mercy of other people's thoughtfulness. This will make them grow, rather than continuing to live in fear, always dependent on the existence of thoughtful others or the right, accommodating environment.

This doesn't stop anywhere really. We already follow certain things which should fall under freedom of speech/expression/action. This concept isn't something new. You don't do Nazi salute in Germany or anywhere rather cuz it hurts/offends people. I could argue it is my freedom of expression. In Japan tattoos in certain traditional places are considered taboo. Victory sign (V with 2 fingers) is considered offensive in certain country ( I don't remember right now which ). People are always going to get triggered/offended because of such actions as they are directly related to them. By asking to be resilient you are practically asking people to be emotionless. It is a cycle which repeats. Few years down the line something else will be more unacceptable and today's stuff will be more open. It is not even a human thing. It is natural cycle and no amount of your argument is going to change that. 'Fair', 'Right', 'Moral', 'Immoral', ' Laws', all this stuff at the end of day is human and subjective at best.

You are so vocal and arguing about this is cuz it is tolerated at this site. Any other forums for same discussions except which are explicitly for this you would most likely be banned. You are so narcissist that you have no empathy. If you consider yourself so right and everyone else wrong, I want to see you saying the N word publicly or whatever the gay insult in front of gay people and then argue your Freedom.

Tattoos are just heavily associated with the yakuza. Not taboo. Also foreigners use them, so it’s convenient for excluding them too.

[jap_jon]

I just googled that and English articles use “taboo” to describe it. So nvm. I grew up there but never thought of it that way.

[knusch]

You are so vocal and arguing about this is cuz it is tolerated at this site. Any other forums for same discussions except which are explicitly for this you would most likely be banned. You are so narcissist that you have no empathy. If you consider yourself so right and everyone else wrong, I want to see you saying the N word publicly or whatever the gay insult in front of gay people and then argue your Freedom.

the pot calling the kettle black...

[Riotcoke]

Can we all just be friends and stop bickering ?