SimplyMonk wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 18:40:
That's fair. No sensible person thinks being "leery" of something is a crime either.
Neither would I, but I think we have to be honest here and say the risk of a single tournament giving one of its participants a disqualification, not even a ban, is about as low risk as you can get to having detrimental effects on the freedom of expression as a whole.
You have to admit though, he did phrase it in a way that, without some pretty involved context, is worthy of a great deal of ire from a community that is very sensitive right now about being perceived misogynistic. Due to his wording, I think some forgiveness can be allowed to those that react a little more spiritedly.
harlock wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 23:10:
im bout to rape this turkey sandwich
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 18:08:
And I'm still leery about demanding such a thing, even if I agree with 'em.
But as for 'no one is saying he's committed a crime', you may want to double check with Cutter and Beamer.
Those risks may be acceptable, but I'm not going to pretend that there's no risk at all.
I'm also not going to pretend this guy seriously threatened to physically rape someone, and that strawman being trotted out doesn't speak well of the people going for it here.
Prez wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 18:04:
Rape jokes are no reason to take action. But actual threats of rape? Oh yeah, big time.
SimplyMonk wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 17:46:
The guy used the word "rape" in direct reference to an action he was going to perform against a woman. That's like using "lynch" with an African, "holocaust" with a Jew or "prohibition" with an Irishman.
That's pretty much it. Free speech doesn't enter into it since the government wasn't involved. No one is saying he committed a crime.
I know there is a gut reaction to want to defend him on some anti-PC or idealistic freedom of expression, but this case clearly falls into the realm of him getting what he deserved for his comment.
Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 17:14:jdreyer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 17:11:Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:15:
kind of like grapefruit and peanut butter.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I almost went steak and peanut butter, but I've had that (sort of) and it wasn't half bad (also sort of.)
jdreyer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 17:11:Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:15:
kind of like grapefruit and peanut butter.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:15:
kind of like grapefruit and peanut butter.
Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:56:
Principled stand?
Jesus. Jesus. Seriously. A principled stand against someone threatening to rape. This isn't someone being asked to sit in the back of the bus, this is someone making a rape comment.
So promoting equality is the same as threatening to rape.
Principled stand, dude.
Uh... que?
That is NOT what it said. Now you're making nice strawmen. Yet somehow I'm the one that doesn't know what a fallacy is.
I never said you were forcing them to change, I said you didn't like what they did. You dislike it. No one is asking this guy to not play Starcraft, they're telling him he can't in their tournament. No one is asking you to leave BluesNews, they're putting you on ignore.
Sounds like Gamergate.
Wait, didn't you say you're against speech policing? But sometimes it's good?
I don't even understand what pronoun "True Believer" is supposed to mean, but fuck, it's coming from a guy that says he wants to take a "principled stand" to defend some guy's right to stay in a Starcraft tournament despite telling a female competitor he was going to rape her.
Your own words, "principled stand" sounds like some kind of "True Believer" bullshit.
It's nice, though, that I know I can call you a complete moron without you hitting that "report" button, because that would be speech policing.
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:40:
Maybe I would, and maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I'd take a principled stand.
If you ran a business, would you pull down posters celebrating feminism or decrying sexism if some of your customers said they felt uncomfortable?
Maybe you should look it up, since you apparently are unaware of what a fallacy is.
If 'X is going to destroy you' in the context of an FPS game makes you shudder and cry, I'm likely going to tell you to relax.
Do you remember the part where I said that just because I disagree doesn't mean I'd force them to change?
Like I said, Beamer - you seem to have a problem telling the difference between 'I disagree' and 'I want to force you to change'.
Yes, it is speech policing. It doesn't magically become something else just because you like the instance of it. Some speech policing is good. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's grey area.
Keep on truckin', True Believer.
Cutter wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:35:
@Yeahyeah
What are you 12? Some things just aren't a joking matter. If you can't grasp that very simple fact then you've got a lot of growing up to do. This isn't being the PC police over some dumb shit that causes shrill leftists to get their panties in a bunch, it's a heinous, violent crime.
By all means, like JD said, start using the word rape in that context around all the women you know and see how that goes over with them and their boyfriends and husbands and such. I hope you have your dental insurance paid up.
Beamer wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:15:
But I'm sure you'd have no problem not associating yourself with people, or if you ran a business, asking people to leave if they said things that made you or your patrons uncomfortable.
Because "I'm going to rape you" is an intellectual thought.
Jesus. Look up "slippery slope fallacy." Christ.
The tournament had the freedom to kick him out.
Apparently you dislike that freedom.
It isn't speech policing. Jesus. You're so concerned with someone telling you what you can or can't do that you never stop to wonder why some people don't like things.
"It's my freedom to say whatever I want without repercussions due to intellectual exchange of ideas!"
Sorry, buddy. You and "intellectual" don't really go well together, kind of like grapefruit and peanut butter.