Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 14:10:
Ah right. I'm half-japanese, my father is a jap, my mother is german. I'm jewish, I've lived through japanese racism first hand. I've seen rabid antisemitism first hand, and had the crap spewed at my home, work, and at me by bigots of every stripe, race, ethnicity and sex. I've seen bigotry, hate, racism and all the rest. They need to grow a thicker skin, and I've traveled all over this freaking rock. Japanese racism is it's own special brand of hate for those that aren't pure. Though none get it as badly as Brazilian-Japanese.

So what you're saying is that instead of turning around and standing up for yourself, you just took it? Every time someone slurred you or attacked you, you just rolled over and let them do it because your so thick skinned...

Standing up and fighting back against things is harder than just accepting the status quo. Your thick skin is something to hide behind. If the things you say in your post happened, how in the 9 hells aren't you offended enough to stand up about it? Sounds more like non-confrontational cowardice to me.

Your sexual orientation is much easier to hide, than your skin colour and ethnicity. They need to grow a thicker skin.

Why should it be hidden any more than your skin colour or ethnicity?

But yeah, it's so much better to live in a world where you need to carry around a tonne of scar tissue and constantly pretend to be something your not in the hopes that someday everyone will just miraculously become nice. /sarcasm

The problem won't fix itself and you and the rest of the 'toughen up princess' crowd aren't helping.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 30, 2011, 03:39:

Instead you try to dismiss my comment by focusing on it, rather than addressing the main points I made.

Maybe you should look into the "parenthical comment" idiom, because what you are claiming just doesn't make sense.

The rest of my post, being the actual post itself, addressed your main points just fine.

it is counter-productive to their intended aims.

And yet here we are, on a forum devoted to gaming, discussing the topic. I think that's exactly what their aims are, public awareness.

I'm sure the public is well aware with how much groups like that attack for the slightest off color remark, considering the majority of the news media has a liberal bias slant to begin with.

Instead you try to dismiss my comment by focusing on it, rather than addressing the main points I made.

Maybe you should look into the "parenthical comment" idiom, because what you are claiming just doesn't make sense.

The rest of my post, being the actual post itself, addressed your main points just fine.

it is counter-productive to their intended aims.

And yet here we are, on a forum devoted to gaming, discussing the topic. I think that's exactly what their aims are, public awareness.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 2011, 04:21.

Upon reflection, you're right, no point continuing this, agree to disagree it is.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 2011, 04:19.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 13:46:
It was a non-event to you. GLAAD getting involved (and politicising? Really? Exactly how did politics get involved at all?) is a complete non-even to the vast majority of the population. You could stop 100 strangers on the street, and likely not find any of them even knew this took place. So what you are doing is just as much an overreaction as what GLAAD did.

You can't have it both ways.

I used politics as the idiom 'to play politics', meaning to manipulate to one's own agenda. It's perfectly legitimate. Instead you try to dismiss my comment by focusing on it, rather than addressing the main points I made. And it doesn't matter how many people do or don't know whether this happened. Heck, most people don't even have a clue about politics but that doesn't make it any less important.

I don't have any problem with GLAAD being allowed to take the action that it has. It's just political correctness gone wrong and it is counter-productive to their intended aims.

Prez wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 17:51:

Beelzebud wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 17:45:

Prez wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 18:09:
Sorry, I'm going to say what I want, when I want, encourage others to do the same, and not care one iota that the thin-skinned people who think they have a right to never be offended don't like it. Yeah, I'm one of your "giant dickheads". Whatever.

The internet tough guy act only works on the internet. I challenge you to go out to a public bar this weekend and say what you want, where you want, and see how well it goes for you. You sound like someone that lives in a small town, and doesn't leave the house much.

Oh goodie, another one!

I can get away saying what I want whenever I want because I don't have hateful thoughts or go around thinking I'm better than other races or religions. I may tell the off-color joke from time to time, or laugh along with others at them, but you'd be surprised at how well I get along with everyone saying what I want when I want. I'm not important enough to be targeted by the NAACP, NOW, or GLAAD. Seeing as how my lesbian sister hangs out with me when I go back to visit I don't think I can be too terrible a person. And yeah, I tell gay jokes, which she laughs at.

Just don't tell me what I can and can't say - that's not your place. And FYI, I'm from NYC, btw, where everyone says what they think pretty regularly.

EDIT: I'm also a badass Ninja who could kill an entire bar full of rowdy rednecks.

Being from NYC and not being a raging liberal? Good on ya Prez.

Beelzebud wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 17:45:

Prez wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 18:09:
Sorry, I'm going to say what I want, when I want, encourage others to do the same, and not care one iota that the thin-skinned people who think they have a right to never be offended don't like it. Yeah, I'm one of your "giant dickheads". Whatever.

The internet tough guy act only works on the internet. I challenge you to go out to a public bar this weekend and say what you want, where you want, and see how well it goes for you. You sound like someone that lives in a small town, and doesn't leave the house much.

Oh goodie, another one!

I can get away saying what I want whenever I want because I don't have hateful thoughts or go around thinking I'm better than other races or religions. I may tell the off-color joke from time to time, or laugh along with others at them, but you'd be surprised at how well I get along with everyone saying what I want when I want. I'm not important enough to be targeted by the NAACP, NOW, or GLAAD. Seeing as how my lesbian sister hangs out with me when I go back to visit I don't think I can be too terrible a person. And yeah, I tell gay jokes, which she laughs at.

Just don't tell me what I can and can't say - that's not your place. And FYI, I'm from NYC, btw, where everyone says what they think pretty regularly.

EDIT: I'm also a badass Ninja who could kill an entire bar full of rowdy rednecks.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2011, 18:14.

Prez wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 18:09:
Sorry, I'm going to say what I want, when I want, encourage others to do the same, and not care one iota that the thin-skinned people who think they have a right to never be offended don't like it. Yeah, I'm one of your "giant dickheads". Whatever.

The internet tough guy act only works on the internet. I challenge you to go out to a public bar this weekend and say what you want, where you want, and see how well it goes for you. You sound like someone that lives in a small town, and doesn't leave the house much.

Okay. Impasse. I'm not going to keep explaining why you are wrong and this "hypocrisy" drum you contineu to beat on is a figment of your imagination. Reading your latest post gives me the idea we aren't even in the same concert hall, much less on the same page of music. I mention the first amendment once in passing and it has been the crux of your counter-argument, as if my whole argument depends on it. "Relying on it"?? That proves you have not comprehended anything I say, nor do you understand the purpose of the 1st Amendment. You've done nothing to illustrate any hypocrisy and instead just insist that I take your word for it, which is simply mystifying to me.

If there were a hint of hypocrisy in anything I say whatsoever, I would rethink it, as I hate hypocrisy because it is fundamentally an intellectual paradox that requires a vast re-think of one's position. Alas, no such thing exists here, yet you persist without any good cause. It's as if you don't wish to actually debate the real point, and instead rather derail the discussion indefinitely.

You are relying on the first amendment to support your position that people should be able to say what they wish without being "attacked" by organizations like GLAAD.

Complete, total, UTTER misrepresentation of my argument. Not even CLOSE to what my argument is. You don't even care enough to understand my side so what's the point? It's quite galling that I have wasted my time presenting a viewpoint you don't even care to read and understand. But lesson learned. I won't make the same mistake with you again.

Let's just agree to disagree, as we are not capable of a reasonable discussion for a number of factors right now. Discussion over for my part.

Generally, you don't call someone you like a "total hypocrite"

I'll assume you were using the general "you" there? Because me liking someone wouldn't stop me from calling them a total hypocrite if that's what they were being.

I'm in no way being hypocritical - I have pointed out the distinct difference in the two scenarios so the fact the you choose to persist in claiming I am is further proof you have a bone to pick with me.

You haven't done anything to demonstrate that you are not. You are relying on the first amendment to support your position that people should be able to say what they wish without being "attacked" by organizations like GLAAD. But the exact same first amendment gives the right to organizations like GLAAD to make such "attacks". If you are for the former, but against the latter, that is a hypocritical position.

The only thing you've done so far is argue the degree of severity of each case. Fine, I'll grant that GLAAD uses their freedom of speech in more extreme ways than posters here have done. But that's more a situational issue than relevant to the matter at hand. Posters here have no influence to enact the sort of repercussions that an influential organization like GLAAD can. But even if they could, but weren't, how would the severity impact on freedom of speech? Your only argument would have to be (and has been) that the free speech that GLAAD is using shouldn't be acceptable. Which just leads right back to selective free speech.

I'm a bit surprised that someone who generally debates intelligently resorts to low-brow derailing tactics rather than addressing the point.

You didn't seem interested in addressing the point, you seemed more interested in issuing insults. Once someone starts insulting me to try and make their point, I take them much less seriously.

or do you wish to keep being pithy and obnoxious?

Apparently I'm making an exception in your case.

So now, did you want to discuss something of substance

If you want people to discuss substance, perhaps you shouldn't claim that you'll stop addressing their substance if they do discuss it.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 16:19:
Actually, the only one to throw the insults out has been you. I haven't made any claims about liking or disliking you

Generally, you don't call someone you like a "total hypocrite" (falsely at that), but that's cool. I'd rather know where I stand with someone. I'm in no way being hypocritical - I have pointed out the distinct difference in the two scenarios so the fact the you choose to persist in claiming I am is further proof you have a bone to pick with me. I don't take offense; rather, I'm a bit surprised that someone who generally debates intelligently resorts to low-brow derailing tactics rather than addressing the point.

Still, if it makes you feel better, I also don't care if some loser on a forum wishes to persist in calling me a hypocrite when I know I am not.

So now, did you want to discuss something of substance, or do you wish to keep being pithy and obnoxious?

Whatever you want to fabricate to make your point, feel free.

Really? That's the best you could come back with? Surely you could have put some effort in, and claimed my pants were on fire.

Doesn't change the truth

Now that I can agree with. You're definitely being hypocritical.

some loser on a forum doesn't like me.

Actually, the only one to throw the insults out has been you. I haven't made any claims about liking or disliking you. Of course, the fact that you've taken me pointing out your position is hypocritical as a personal attack is quite revealing.

If you want to continue the pissing contest, by all means, keep it up, but it's worth noting that you're pissing into the wind.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 15:39:

my skin is noticeably thinner when it comes to attack dog groups that try to destroy people and businesses in the name of political correctness.

Right, so you're only for free speech until people use it in a way you don't like. Got it.

In other words, total hypocrite.

Whatever you want to fabricate to make your point, feel free. I figured you were running on empty in the ideas department anyway. Doesn't change the truth, nor does it make any difference to me that some loser on a forum doesn't like me.

my skin is noticeably thinner when it comes to attack dog groups that try to destroy people and businesses in the name of political correctness.

Right, so you're only for free speech until people use it in a way you don't like. Got it.

In other words, total hypocrite.

Which was the original point, once again. What you are complaining about GLAAD doing is the same as what you are doing. The only difference being people don't actually give a damn if you call them out.

Again, no. I just illustrated why the the two reactions are not the same. In short, my complaint stops here, while GLAAD's is simply step one out of the thought police playbook. And please don't pretend that we both don't know full well exactly what would have happened had Blizzard said "Ah gimme a break - it was a joke people. Lighten up!" Escalation of rhetoric, 'awareness' campaigns of Blizzard's "Hatred", call for boycotts to damage Blizzard's business. It's their modus operandi, and it works to stifle what used to be everyone's right to make a joke without fear of repercussion, which is why they continue to use it. THAT is browbeating and demonizing. It has worked extremely effectively in ruining people in the past - most people will apologize at step one just to shut the cretins up to stop the hypersensitive freaks' crusade to destroy them.

We can play semantics all day; just know I patently do not and will not accept the parallel you insist on continuing to try to make. I will simply stop addressing it at all should you persist. I have a thick skin when someone calls me a pasty-white fat guinea; my skin is noticeably thinner when it comes to self-serving attack dog groups that try to destroy people and businesses in the name of political correctness. Or use their past successes to strong-arm people into letting them have their way, ruining the country along the way.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2011, 15:38.

I never figured you for one of the thin-skinned.

In general, I'm not.

I think we both can agree that stating an opinion on a web forum hardly qualifies as harassing, and most certainly will not destroy anyone's reputation or career the way special interest groups like GLAAD and their supporters make a habit of.

True, so I guess 1 out of 3 isn't bad. Of course, I didn't claim you'd been harrassing anyone, just browbeating and demonizing.

I have not followed the tried and tested thought police tactic of incessant escalation of demands and scorn-filled rhetoric for the express purpose of publicly humiliating someone who exercises their first amendment right until they capitulate.

You mean like GLAAD did in this case? Oh, wait, they didn't do anything like that at all.

I will say, however, that you do seem to have the "scorn-filled rhetoric for the express purpose of publicly humiliating someone who exercises their first amendment right" part down. What's funny about it is that you are preaching having a "thick skin", but then turn around and complain about GLAAD exercising their first amendment rights. So it's wrong to publicly humiliate racists and gay bashers, but it's ok to publicly humiliate minorities and gays?

Which was the original point, once again. What you are complaining about GLAAD doing is the same as what you are doing. The only difference being people don't actually give a damn if you call them out.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 13:42:

they harass, they browbeat, and demonize people incessantly until they force societal norms

Good thing no one here has browbeat or demonized people.

the whiney crusade of the faux noble sissies

Guess I spoke too soon.

I never figured you for one of the thin-skinned. I think we both can agree that stating an opinion on a web forum hardly qualifies as harassing, and most certainly will not destroy anyone's reputation or career the way special interest groups like GLAAD and their supporters make a habit of. I have not followed the tried and tested thought police tactic of incessant escalation of demands and scorn-filled rhetoric for the express purpose of publicly humiliating someone who exercises their first amendment right until they capitulate. The parallel you are drawing doesn't hold.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2011, 14:17.

You completely missed the point I was making. I was RESPONDING to people that were overreacting, saying that it was unnecessary and counter-productive. The original video was a 'non-event' but became an event when GLAAD got involved and politicised it. My point stands.

It was a non-event to you. GLAAD getting involved (and politicising? Really? Exactly how did politics get involved at all?) is a complete non-even to the vast majority of the population. You could stop 100 strangers on the street, and likely not find any of them even knew this took place. So what you are doing is just as much an overreaction as what GLAAD did.

You can't have it both ways.

they harass, they browbeat, and demonize people incessantly until they force societal norms

Good thing no one here has browbeat or demonized people.

the whiney crusade of the faux noble sissies

Guess I spoke too soon.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 29, 2011, 07:56:
Right, but I think his point was that what you are doing right now is exactly what you are claiming they shouldn't be doing. You shouldn't be complaining about this. You shouldn't be getting worked up about a non-event like this. You are, to use your words, being an over-sensitive cretin.

It's hard to support an argument that boils down to "I'm complaining that you shouldn't be complaining".

You completely missed the point I was making. I was RESPONDING to people that were overreacting, saying that it was unnecessary and counter-productive. The original video was a 'non-event' but became an event when GLAAD got involved and politicised it. My point stands.

It's interesting that so many people in this thread will see racist comments as a bad idea, but don't extend the same attitude toward homophobic comments. Many of the posters here just can't fathom that "gay" and "fag" are as awful as racial slurs in the minds of many, many people. The fact that events like this get so much attention and upset so many people is mystifying to them, yet if we were talking about a company showing a video with racist ranting, there would be far less outrage at the outrage.

As has already been covered, the original footage was clearly satirical and the video that Blizzard used censored out any offensive content to convey a different message. And racial language CAN be used in humour and be defended, as I highlighted in a previous post. If you hold up race or sexuality and say that they aren't appropriate for humour or are somehow different then that only serves to perpetuate their use to discriminate. By treating them as everyday words that you can use without fear of condemnation you take away the bitterness associated with them. Calling someone a nigger or queer should not be any more offensive than calling someone stupid. Political correctness causes more problems than it solves.