Malicious use of slurs against players that are based on race and/or ethnicity. We will show absolutely no tolerance towards racist and xenophobic ideals.
Expires in 6 months
zhuorb the difference is the rapist is being put in prison where they can't (or, shouldn't be able to) rapé (I love how rapé is censored but rapist isn't, good job censorship team), banning a person from a website just results in them rejoining the site, it's a temporary fix and a really shítty bandaid
ladies maybe I didn’t explain myself well and I’ll take the blame for that. I agree w nearly everything said in here i just don’t get the push against at least trying to make words w hateful insinuations less frequently used. I agree you can be racist without slurring, and it can be infinitely more harmful than a slur. I agree that harassment is worse than a slur. I’m not disagreeing w your opinions at all i just don’t see why not at the very least try and stop slurring too and now try and find a way to also lessen racist / sexist / homophobic rhetoric and behaviors altogether ??
deletedabout 6 years
Ok you explained what you meant so like disregard what i Just said because what u said makes sense :DDDDDDD
I mean that's true to an extent, Linxe. To my knowledge in Australia (and certain parts of England?) the word cúnt is relatively harmless, it just means someone who's a nuisance, meanwhile in the US we take it as the patriarchy attacking us
I think the meaning of a word really depends on society's value in it, if we all stopped caring about the negative attributes of a word it wouldn't have any power to begin with
deletedabout 6 years
I actually disagree Zhuorb about moderator discretion, I'd prefer less mod discretion and more specific rules. The thing about this rule is that it's still pretty vague/unrestrictive, thanks to "malicious" and "against players".
here's the thing, you're not making someone less racist by banning a word - they're still thinking it, they're just saying something else
just don't stick around with people you don't like
But as someone who has never really had homophobic thoughts, I still called annoying people fgot.
Was I propagating homophobia by using its slurs, or was I acting against homophobia by using its slurs on non-gay people, thereby nulllifying the effect of the word.
As JK Rowling once said: that fear of the word only increases fear of the thing itself. If we use the word fgot all the time, then its initial meaning and power is lost and it is rendered useless.
agreed. A word is not inherently hateful, it's the context. The entire argument stems from laziness because nobody wants to go through the trouble of understanding context ("hurrrrr how can we possibly differentiate between those joking about it and those using the joke as a facade???")
here's the thing, you're not making someone less racist by banning a word - they're still thinking it, they're just saying something else
just don't stick around with people you don't like
But as someone who has never really had homophobic thoughts, I still called annoying people fgot.
Was I propagating homophobia by using its slurs, or was I acting against homophobia by using its slurs on non-gay people, thereby nulllifying the effect of the word.
As JK Rowling once said: that fear of the word only increases fear of the thing itself. If we use the word fgot all the time, then its initial meaning and power is lost and it is rendered useless.
here's the thing, you're not making someone less racist by banning a word - they're still thinking it, they're just saying something else
just don't stick around with people you don't like
the point of the rule isn’t to try and reform racist people, it’s to attempt to protect others from being victims of racism.
my argument is it doesn't really do as much for protecting them as punishments for actual racist implications would. This is a lazy if-then rule for moderators who are either unwilling or unable to apply their discretion in cases
there is no top-down approach to racism because it's about human behaviour. I find it sadly amusing that people actually believe in the HAH NO SLURS RACISM IS CANCELLED story
no one is saying this though. we are merely saying that eliminating slurs is better than allowing slurs “because it won’t eliminate all racism”?
if they don't believe in this then what are they doing about the actual racism lol this is clear moral vanity, especially because no one would want to argue against this rule- it makes you like a complete arsehole
a lot of people don’t choose to be offended it’s just a visceral reaction they have to certain vocabulary it’s just how their mind works. I know it’s easy to rectify all this debate in your head with a simple answer because your knowledge of the world is very limited but it’s simply just not that simple. If the solution was “just don’t be offended!” then it would have happened by now dude
banning words is not the solution either because language isn't restrictive in options. In fact, users of slurs are in some cases (say, using the word to make an argumentative point) less racist than those unironically believing in and propagating racist stereotypes, and holding biased opinions towards certain races.
Maybe if we ban gay people there will be no need for gay slurs so they will stop being used so its a win-win.
Similar method for racial slurs could work.
The first EpicMafia Purge? Eugenics? Isolationism/Segregation?
I've always been of the opinion that if you say 'frick' but you mean 'fúck' you actually said fúck
it's pointless to sugar coat a pile of dogshít
you're actually making the other person say it in their head, or at the very least absorbing its meaning
deletedabout 6 years
a lot of people don’t choose to be offended it’s just a visceral reaction they have to certain vocabulary it’s just how their mind works. I know it’s easy to rectify all this debate in your head with a simple answer because your knowledge of the world is very limited but it’s simply just not that simple. If the solution was “just don’t be offended!” then it would have happened by now dude
banning words is not the solution either because language isn't restrictive in options. In fact, users of slurs are in some cases (say, using the word to make an argumentative point) less racist than those unironically believing in and propagating racist stereotypes, and holding biased opinions towards certain races.
Maybe if we ban gay people there will be no need for gay slurs so they will stop being used so its a win-win.
there is no top-down approach to racism because it's about human behaviour. I find it sadly amusing that people actually believe in the HAH NO SLURS RACISM IS CANCELLED story
no one is saying this though. we are merely saying that eliminating slurs is better than allowing slurs “because it won’t eliminate all racism”?
Personally I don't really like the word rétard but it just fits so aptly, if someone can give me an equally usable word I would gladly use that instead