Originally posted by LynxJSA Delatur, so you are saying that you've actually met a woman other than the author of the article who has found the phrase "throws like a girl" offensive?
Having known quite a few women over the years, yes, I've met a few who at least raise an eyebrow at phrases like that. I did live through the feminist movement, after all. And offensive might be a tad strong. Insensitive might be a better word. But let's not get hung up on one phrase, Lynx. The crux of the argument here is how we, as a species, can treat each other better if we just stop for a moment and think about where our words come from. As I've said before, intent is certainly important, but perception is at least equally important. We cannot consider ourselves worldly, or even cultured, unless we grasp that.
I have feelings but I feel no reason to wear them on my sleeve. And this doens't mean I haven't before but with age and intelligence comes wisdom and maturity...some people move at different paces I suppose. But having less freedoms in this context usually a result of more and more people finding more and more things offensive and then they want everyone else to wear their each and every individuals feelings on their sleeves as well.
I think having a simple /ignore is enough to quell the ail (for most people sound of mind that is)...there really isn't a need to have a coded multivortexed chat system that can read peoples minds and zap them before they type something or w/e.
If someone says something you don't like or find offensive...step 1 is “/ignore”...step 2 is “get over it”...step 3 is “move on to something more important rather than wallowing in a state of con-tempt over mere words”
Easily one of the most memorable days of my MMO gaming was the day I realized I could disable zone chat. The relief from the tension alone would have been worth it, but to my surprise the immersion of the game environment increased substantially. Done and done, it's off for good.
Guild chat = tastes great, less filling
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
Having never been disenfranchised, they have no understanding of how derogatory words belittle and disempower others. It is a way to keep the minorities " in their place".
Word. There is for sure lack of empathy from their side.
I don't think this is the type of debate I would want to start on a gaming forum. We can start talking about all the special rights and protections people get... and which paticular group gets none of those... but this isn't the place for it.
As to the article...
General chat is probably the first thing most people shut off. Or use as a tool to ignore as many idiots as possible quickly.
Companies don't enforce community guide lines because of the money they lose. Someone who worked for Mythic should know all about "we'll investage the player and take appropraite action" really means "have a nice day, but we aren't doing anything about it."
So what we need are better tools.... like the abilitty to ignore an entire account. So that 15,000 level 1 alts on it are automaticly ignored.
The ability for that same ignore list to be accessed by all of our characters etc
The only bad part of general chat is that new people can't get help... they are either lost in the drool spam or never seen because of the volume of people who have left the channel.
I agree that certain groups in society may be a bit too sensitive to occasional careless language and would do well to just take the high road. But one still must acknowledge the fact that words like these are, in absolute fact, rooted in hatred. You can place them in any light-hearted context you like, but the histories behind these words are inheritably malicious.
Perhaps people do feel in an anonymous outlet like an MMO that this is simply slang. These people go about peppering their guild chats and trade channels with a liberal dosage of derogatory euphemisms. I have read a few people, in defending the use of such language, use such phrases as "in the real world" and "it's perfectly acceptable." They are, of course, speaking from their own perspective as if it were universally commonplace. This seems to be a character trait many younger people share.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Can you imagine working next to the person who says "this job is gay" or perhaps spouts off the "N" word at his place of employment as freely and confidently as he would in his favorite virtual town? In using this language you are setting yourself up to be perceived very poorly by a large number of people. Some of which may sign your "perfectably acceptable" and "real world" paycheck.
The author mentions that "words have value." The language one uses greatly reflects on the character of the person.
My apoligies Antarious for derailing your efforts to pull this meandering topic back on track.
I have a question for all those of you who defend the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (that means 'bad word'). Have you ever had a political movement, or several, focused on removing rights from you because of something you have no power to change, nor would want to change because it is a bedrock of your personality and identity? I'm guessing no. Black people have had this (c.f. slavery, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Clan). LGBT people still do (c.f. Proposition 8 in California, Fred Phelps and associates, etc.).
When was the last time someone tried to push you off your big pile of privilege? An Englishman in Wales will be looked askance at, but he can leave Wales. A white man in a black neighborhood may not feel safe - but a black man will find that most of the US is a 'white neighborhood'. Discrimination remains rife, and treating it like it doesn't exist is not only not the solution, it's part of the problem.
Bigotry comes in a sliding scale. It's not a binary thing, where either you're a bigot or you're not. Hell, I have my own bigotries, which I will freely admit is a bad thing. There's no difference in kind between someone who says "you throw like a girl" and a member of the Ku Klux Klan - only one in scale and direction. It's simply a question of how much energy you put into denigrating other human beings.
Firstly, let me congratulate you on correctly saying 'because he couldnt care less'. So many of your countrymen can't seem to get the grammar of that simple statement correct.
Now, for the people arguing that definitions and acceptable usage of words change over time: Yes, the do. However these new uses and definitions are always fought against and argued against. It's the nature of evolution. Generation Y wants 'gay' to mean 'lame' but generation X find it offensive. The 2 generations argue and one of them win. Probably generation Y. By the time generation Z comes along generation X will be dieing and therefore unable to argue their case.
The main objection to 'gay' meaning 'lame' is that it implies that being 'gay', meaning homosexual, is a bad thing. The same evolution of language happened with 'lame'. It used to mean:
'Lame Lame, a. [Compar. Lamer; superl. Lamest.]
[OE. lame, AS. lama; akin to D. lam, G. lahm,OHG., Dan., & Sw. lam, Icel. lami, Russ. lomate to break, lomota rheumatism.]
1. (a) Moving with pain or difficulty on account of injury, defect, or temporary obstruction of a function; as, a lame leg, arm, or muscle. (b) To some degree disabled by reason of the imperfect action of a limb; crippled; as, a lame man. ``Lame of one leg.'' --Arbuthnot. ``Lame in both his feet.'' --2 Sam. ix. 13. ``He fell, and became lame.'' --2 Sam. iv. 4.'
Now it also means 'not good'
Language has always evolved. People have always fought against it. Life goes on.
This is incidentally pretty denigrating of disabled people. Who, again, have more than enough problems already. Do you mean to argue that because Generation Y is too stupid to realize that using certain words is hurtful, that makes it okay? Or do you just mean to say that people who are different from you have no feelings and should be disregarded as thinking humans?
This thread is indicative of some serious problems in youth culture. Pretty much all youth culture, too, except for a few isolated enclaves. Youth must be taught the consequences of their actions, and apparently, noone has bothered to teach that the consequences of casual bigotry are, well, problematic at best.
And what's wrong with non-derogatory pejoratives? Can't we find ways to say something is bad without also saying that some of our fellow humans are?
Mindless or unthinking bigotry in phrases often comes from mindless or unthinking people, and although it's sensible to try explain to them the offense they are causing, you need to be aware you may well be unable to get through to them - but that does not make the effort worthless. If they insult or upset other players then the people running the game are absolutely right to act to prevent it happening - if something offends though, I always prefer first trying to explain what the offense was, before shouting for the cops to lock up the 'offender'. You might be able to get them to realise what they did and change their behaviour, which is surely a far better result than getting them a ban from an online game. Shout for the cops after you know persuasion won't work, not as the first reponse based on your own assumptions that you can't ever argue with 'people like that' - which is also, in the proper sense, prejudice.
Whist I'd be pretty upset at most of the examples of word usage that have been mentioned so far in this thread though, and all appear worth pursuing and arguing against, I'm concerned that there appears to be a growing belief that any of us have a 'right' NOT to be offended by what others say or think, which I'm not convinced is true at all. Also, remember that being offended on behalf of other people can sometimes of itself be patronising.
A better world would in part consist of one where people at least thought before speaking, or typing. Work towards it yourself, encourage it in others, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Great article Sanya. But you really should have expected this sort of response from what I assume are predominately straight, white, males. Having never been disenfranchised, they have no understanding of how derogatory words belittle and disempower others. It is a way to keep the minorities " in their place". But they will never see it this way. They will claim freedom of speech, not seeing that just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD say it. Words are communication, especially in the absence of visual cues. A little sensitivty to others' feelings won't hurt you. I have to say, you have all proven Sanya's conclusiont that her recent experience was the exception, not the rule.
And people who overgeneralize an entire ethnic group aren't "racist"? Because that's what you just did. Maybe I should be offended. Unfortunately, I'm laughing too much at your ignorance to be offended.
Let me explain something to you as a "straight white male". First off, there is no "white" male anymore. I'm willing to bet the "black", "brown", "yellow", and "red" male don't really exist as a "race" anymore either. You go through anyone's family tree in the 21st century and you will find the intermixing of different racial bloodlines. The only "race" that means, or should mean, anything anymore is the "human race".
So don't try to perpetrate how "the straight white male" is somehow automatically "insensitive" because we haven't been "disenfranchised". If you really want to go there, perhaps I was "disenfranchised" when I had to pay my own way through college while other "races" were given scholoarships BECAUSE of their race ( United Negro College Fund, NAACP, etc. ).
Yet I don't blame someone of that particular racial background for using those scholarships, anymore than I blame someone being given a job because of their racial background through "affirmative action". I blame the government, and people like yourself, who continue to divide the races while proclaiming the opposite. If idiots would stop looking for "racial" bullshit in every sentence and every eye movement and every hairstyle, stop using race as a "handicap" and an excuse for why they don't have what the other guy has, maybe we COULD all just get along.
And people who overgeneralize an entire ethnic group aren't "racist"? Because that's what you just did. Maybe I should be offended. Unfortunately, I'm laughing too much at your ignorance to be offended. Let me explain something to you as a "straight white male". First off, there is no "white" male anymore. I'm willing to bet the "black", "brown", "yellow", and "red" male don't really exist as a "race" anymore either. You go through anyone's family tree in the 21st century and you will find the intermixing of different racial bloodlines. The only "race" that means, or should mean, anything anymore is the "human race". So don't try to perpetrate how "the straight white male" is somehow automatically "insensitive" because we haven't been "disenfranchised". If you really want to go there, perhaps I was "disenfranchised" when I had to pay my own way through college while other "races" were given scholoarships BECAUSE of their race ( United Negro College Fund, NAACP, etc. ). Yet I don't blame someone of that particular racial background for using those scholarships, anymore than I blame someone being given a job because of their racial background through "affirmative action". I blame the government, and people like yourself, who continue to divide the races while proclaiming the opposite. If idiots would stop looking for "racial" bullshit in every sentence and every eye movement and every hairstyle, stop using race as a "handicap" and an excuse for why they don't have what the other guy has, maybe we COULD all just get along.
I refer you to my question above. You're one of the people I'd like to see answer that.
About race: It was a ficticious concept to begin with, even when it was invented in the 16th century to justify genocide and slavery. The concept today exists as a cultural label attached to certian genetic phenotypes within the human species - and in the minds of bigots who still use it to justify the unjustifiable.
When you can be certain that no person is ever discriminated against due to skin color, sexual orientation, gender (or even being transgendered), then you can call the various affirmative action systems unfair. Until then, you as a white, straight male, are sitting on a huge pile of privilege that makes a dragon's hoard look like pocket change. And yes, if you don't realize that you are sitting on that pile of privilege and looking down at everyone who does not, then you are insensitive. It has bupkis to do with being white, or straight, or male. It has everything to do with the side effects of having those traits, namely that you will never find yourself being inescapably persecuted or discriminated against - and Englishman can leave Wales. A white man can leave a black neighborhood. A black man cannot stop being black. A gay man cannot stop being gay. So stop acting like they can.
... Companies don't enforce community guide lines because of the money they lose. Someone who worked for Mythic should know all about "we'll investage the player and take appropraite action" really means "have a nice day, but we aren't doing anything about it."
So what we need are better tools.... like the abilitty to ignore an entire account. So that 15,000 level 1 alts on it are automaticly ignored.
The ability for that same ignore list to be accessed by all of our characters etc
The only bad part of general chat is that new people can't get help... they are either lost in the drool spam or never seen because of the volume of people who have left the channel.
One of the reasons that I continue to play Guild Wars, is because the opposite of this is true. Once you pay the box price, Arena Net stops earning money from you (sure, they hope that you will buy add-ons for your account, but there is no guarantee) ; so they don't have to worry about losing monthly subs when they kick people for being foul-mouthed bigots. And, actually, they may even earn more money by kicking said bigot's account--some of these players are stupid enough to buy a second account in a feeble attempt to 'get revenge' for the first account getting banned.
As for the tools that you mentioned, they already exist in GW. when you ignore a player, it ignores all characters on the account. Your ignore list (and your friends list) is tied to your account.
So, in general, GW maintains a fairly positive and mature general chat. New players are frequently able to get reliable help (if you are in a populated district that is), and conversations hover around the range of 18-21y/o maturity level.
To get back to Sanya's main topic, and once again, another great article here Sanya.
Most of the situations you explained there are the norm for the majority of Guild Wars. (At this point some of you may be thinking that this is shameless plug for GW, but honestly these are my experiences with the game) When someone makes a stray comment like the 'Nvidia's gay' comment, people in GW are usually quick to respond about how the comment was insensitive, maybe make a joke about it, and then move on. Sure there may be a stray 'Your Mom's Gay' or something similar, but those people are usually put on ignore quickly. And if people are being rude and abusive after being rebuked in general chat, then they get reported. Most first offenders get a 2-3 day ban, repeat offenders get longer bans, and the most serious cases have their account revoked and their IP banned (but only after investigation by several devs; and even then, there is an appeals process).
For bugs, since in GW you don't pay a monthly fee, most people don't expect to get rewarded, or have their items restored when a bug is reported. One might think that this would drive people to report less bugs, but the opposite happened. Enough bugs were getting reported with high frequency through the support ticket system, that they opened an official wiki with a section for bug reporting, so repeat bug reports wouldn't clog the CS. But, as an added bonus, even though the devs are not obligated to the players through monthly fee, items lost to bugs (which happens so infrequently, you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning) are usually restored.
As far as CS presence in GW, it happens so often that the CS/devs are not referred to by character name, but by their first names instead (although for some of the devs, this isn't fair since they used their real name as their character name). Even though most of the Arena Net development team has stopped working on GW in favor of working on GW2, many of the devs spend time in game just to hang out and earn titles like the rest of us lowly players.
Now for the disillusionment. The 'warm fuzzy internet' portion of GW as described above, is limited only to PvE areas. Once a player decides to hop out of the PvE line, and set foot into the PvP portions of the game, it becomes a ruthless, gutter mouthed, solo-swagger, "join my guild or we will rape you.” game. Basically the only way to learn PvP in GW is to make friends with a PvX player in some late-game dungeon, or just stick it out in the Random Arena until someone notices you. And speaking of the random arena, the maturity level drops from that 18-21y/o level, down to "8y/o read the bathroom stall, and is now repeating only the swear words"
*prepares self to be called a GW fanboi*
Edit: I make it sound like there are a lot of bugs in GW, but there are relatively few nowadays. The most serious bugs recently are tied to the monthly skill-balance changes. When the skill balances occur, the changes to the skills sometimes breaks AI behaviour, or makes some areas of PvE unplayable becuase the AI is now godly due to skill changes intended for PvP.
Yeah, general chat can be highly amusing. It is interesting how certain words or phrases can touch players hot buttons.
The ones that crack me up is the guys professing love for a female avatar, when more chance than not the avatar has a male player behind it.
When I was a counselor in UO we had a guild that required it 's members to use a phrase that had the word rape in it when they killed someone. They were advised to change it and refused. The entire guild accounts were then banned across the 3 servers they operated on. That was a big splash as there were some prominent accounts in it.
I agree that it has been a bit of an odd month as far as smacktalk goes. I play EVE Online, where smacktalk is king, and I don't think I've had anyone smack in local all month. After combat it's been "good fight" instead of "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries". Hell, even the hulk we caught mining in a belt in lowsec and tried to ransom didn't smack, and that was highly unusual. (We ended up blowing him up because he wouldn't pay. )
-Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
And people who overgeneralize an entire ethnic group aren't "racist"? Because that's what you just did. Maybe I should be offended. Unfortunately, I'm laughing too much at your ignorance to be offended. Let me explain something to you as a "straight white male". First off, there is no "white" male anymore. I'm willing to bet the "black", "brown", "yellow", and "red" male don't really exist as a "race" anymore either. You go through anyone's family tree in the 21st century and you will find the intermixing of different racial bloodlines. The only "race" that means, or should mean, anything anymore is the "human race". So don't try to perpetrate how "the straight white male" is somehow automatically "insensitive" because we haven't been "disenfranchised". If you really want to go there, perhaps I was "disenfranchised" when I had to pay my own way through college while other "races" were given scholoarships BECAUSE of their race ( United Negro College Fund, NAACP, etc. ). Yet I don't blame someone of that particular racial background for using those scholarships, anymore than I blame someone being given a job because of their racial background through "affirmative action". I blame the government, and people like yourself, who continue to divide the races while proclaiming the opposite. If idiots would stop looking for "racial" bullshit in every sentence and every eye movement and every hairstyle, stop using race as a "handicap" and an excuse for why they don't have what the other guy has, maybe we COULD all just get along.
I refer you to my question above. You're one of the people I'd like to see answer that.
About race: It was a ficticious concept to begin with, even when it was invented in the 16th century to justify genocide and slavery. The concept today exists as a cultural label attached to certian genetic phenotypes within the human species - and in the minds of bigots who still use it to justify the unjustifiable.
When you can be certain that no person is ever discriminated against due to skin color, sexual orientation, gender (or even being transgendered), then you can call the various affirmative action systems unfair. Until then, you as a white, straight male, are sitting on a huge pile of privilege that makes a dragon's hoard look like pocket change. And yes, if you don't realize that you are sitting on that pile of privilege and looking down at everyone who does not, then you are insensitive. It has bupkis to do with being white, or straight, or male. It has everything to do with the side effects of having those traits, namely that you will never find yourself being inescapably persecuted or discriminated against - and Englishman can leave Wales. A white man can leave a black neighborhood. A black man cannot stop being black. A gay man cannot stop being gay. So stop acting like they can.
Sorry, but your the one who needs to take a step back.
So everything is so "unfair" to others that aren't white?
I think Obama pretty much blew your argument out of the water. Everytime you or somebody else wants to pull the "I'm being held back because of my race" card, I'm going to refer you to Obama. Or maybe Colin Powell. Or Clarence Thomas. Or any of the others who somehow managed to do what you apparently think can't be done.
And affirmative action does not make things equal. It in fact widens the divide and causes more resentment.
And if I'm so privileged, why aren't I making 100k-200k-1 million dollars a year unlike many people of other racial backgrounds? It couldn't possibly be because those people put in the time and effort to get where they are instead of listening to how "held down" they were, could it? I mean, everything is handed to us "white folk", ain't it?
You make me laugh and cry at the same time, dude. Wake up and join the future.
Great article Sanya. But you really should have expected this sort of response from what I assume are predominately straight, white, males. Having never been disenfranchised, they have no understanding of how derogatory words belittle and disempower others. It is a way to keep the minorities " in their place". But they will never see it this way. They will claim freedom of speech, not seeing that just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD say it. Words are communication, especially in the absence of visual cues. A little sensitivty to others' feelings won't hurt you. I have to say, you have all proven Sanya's conclusiont that her recent experience was the exception, not the rule.
Really had to put some stress on the brain cells to figure out these comments come from straight white males? I mean really ... black ... gay ... women ... other minorities, are more than likely ruled out right? How about you add ignorant to it next time so you don't lump some of the decent white straight males in with the trash you want to make us all out to be .... thanks.
Sorry, but your the one who needs to take a step back. So everything is so "unfair" to others that aren't white? I think Obama pretty much blew your argument out of the water. Everytime you or somebody else wants to pull the "I'm being held back because of my race" card, I'm going to refer you to Obama. Or maybe Colin Powell. Or Clarence Thomas. Or any of the others who somehow managed to do what you apparently think can't be done. And affirmative action does not make things equal. It in fact widens the divide and causes more resentment. And if I'm so privileged, why aren't I making 100k-200k-1 million dollars a year unlike many people of other racial backgrounds? It couldn't possibly be because those people put in the time and effort to get where they are instead of listening to how "held down" they were, could it? I mean, everything is handed to us "white folk", ain't it? You make me laugh and cry at the same time, dude. Wake up and join the future.
With one hand you hold up Obama and Powell and the rest, who have accomplished what they have not because of, but in spite of the system they faced. Their achievements are something to be proud of, not something to take away from, but you do, when you talk about affirmative action.
I don't know how much you make a year. Probably less than some people with darker skin than yours. But you probably also make more than a lot of other people with a different teint, as well. The privilege you have is not a monetary one, it is cultural. It's the simple fact of being a member of the majority culture of the nation you live in. Now I know there's examples of affirmative action meaning that people who are not minority-members get screwed - scholarships being all but impossible to get, schools being practically closed to non-minority people, etc. But those are symptoms of broader problems within the US society, as I see it. They're a problem because while advocating for black rights, asian rights, gay rights, etc. etc. is all good and well, people are failing to take into consideration human rights.
The American society is geared towards keeping the poor poor, and the rich rich. This benefits the rich a lot, and since they can then keep the poor entertained and distracted from real problems, noone else cares. As well, a lot of anger that should rightfully be directed against economic oppression is instead pointed at, say, the black guy who got a scholarship, or the asian chick who managed to get into some school, or something. Instead of agitating for a system that ensures a high level of education for everyone (like, say, Sweden's) all the people whom it would benefit best spend their time at each others' throats over tiny, relatively inconsequential matters.
The worker's movement in the US was basically defeated by racism. White workers went on strike, were replaced by black workers, causing a schism in the unions, making it about white against black, rather than worker against capital. That did not happen over here (Sweden). As a result, we have five weeks vacation, months of paid sick days, and a year's paid paternal leave, while you have two weeks vacation if you're lucky, no paid sick days, and any paternal leave is unpaid as well. Basically, the poor people got screwed by being turned against each other. The end result is that noone noticed who was really getting their jollies at the cost of the working class.
Do I sound like a socialist? Sure. I am one. Socialism, you see, means more people with higher educations, better health, and higher salaries, meaning more taxes get paid and more money gets pumped back into the economy. It's simply good business sense on a societal scale.
Sorry, but your the one who needs to take a step back. So everything is so "unfair" to others that aren't white? I think Obama pretty much blew your argument out of the water. Everytime you or somebody else wants to pull the "I'm being held back because of my race" card, I'm going to refer you to Obama. Or maybe Colin Powell. Or Clarence Thomas. Or any of the others who somehow managed to do what you apparently think can't be done. And affirmative action does not make things equal. It in fact widens the divide and causes more resentment. And if I'm so privileged, why aren't I making 100k-200k-1 million dollars a year unlike many people of other racial backgrounds? It couldn't possibly be because those people put in the time and effort to get where they are instead of listening to how "held down" they were, could it? I mean, everything is handed to us "white folk", ain't it? You make me laugh and cry at the same time, dude. Wake up and join the future.
With one hand you hold up Obama and Powell and the rest, who have accomplished what they have not because of, but in spite of the system they faced. Their achievements are something to be proud of, not something to take away from, but you do, when you talk about affirmative action.
You know what, Mr. Sweden? Why are you discussing racism in the U.S. when you don't even live here? Did you read about us in a book or seen us on the news and now are the authority on how things work over here?
My views of affrimative action do not take away from those individuals I mentioned or anyone else. Affirmative action in this country basically says "if you don't have X numbver of non-caucasian employees, you will be penalized". So you know what happens? People are hired not because of their qualifications, but because of their skin color. Is that not racist to you? Sure seems so to me. And what you get from this system is workers ( both caucasian and minority workers ) who may have been more qualified, but weren't the "needed" "minority" , losing out on that job because of affirmative action, and therefore feeling resentment.Resentment breeds hate, pal. And that is what affirmative action really ends up doing, dividing even further rather than uniting or making equal.
The idea behind affirmative action, and what affirmative action really is, is two different things entirely.
For example, the idea behind communism isn't bad. Yet what have we seen from every country/nation that chose the communist way? Exactly the opposite of the stated intentions. Affirmative action is the same way, a good idea with lousy implementation that achieves exactly the opposite of its intended effect.
It would seem that the columnist has hypocritically discredited herself by offending the “straight white males” who chose to take offense. Add to that she uses name calling to try and add weight to her argument by using the label “scum”....what's next??
And some others are trying to make this a complex multi-rooted emotional shock and in doing so miss the simple realities.
EXP A: Words like “All should be treated equally and fairly” Have merit and are reality because we all come into this world the same way..We all should have the same right to live and grow. These are words worth something and based in reality and words worth fighting for.
EXP B: “You are nothing but a worthless N.....” Is not based in reality or truth, it's ridiculous for anyone to come along and suddenly give the words power (just as ridiculous as once thinking the world was flat in truth) . If it offends someone then it is that someone who gives it power, otherwise it's simple mindless and meaningless rabble.
If someone tries to unjustly take my shelter away or sustenance then they better prepare themselves for a fight because I will fight and kill if need be.
If someone comes along and calls me a (insert w/e) I have a choice to determine my own feelings for they(that someone) have no power in this arena. The difference resides in what I decide to feel and not in what they said.
The worker's movement in the US was basically defeated by racism. White workers went on strike, were replaced by black workers, causing a schism in the unions, making it about white against black, rather than worker against capital.
Thanks for the info. I never knew that!
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
The worker's movement in the US was basically defeated by racism. White workers went on strike, were replaced by black workers, causing a schism in the unions, making it about white against black, rather than worker against capital.
Thanks for the info. I never knew that!
Me neither. I'm sure he's willing to provide us with his source of information for our enlightnement though.
I also find it entertaining that, had this thread been started by a normal member in the forums, it would have already been locked and/or deleted for being troll and flame bait, yet because it's an "article", it's excused. Sanya knew what this thread would devolve into. If she didn't, then I seriously question her abilities as a journalist, writer or whatever she considers herself.
It's a matter of historic record, and most certainly didn't help improve race relations, although with the prior behavior of whites enslaving blacks, I'm sure most white people didn't need much help thinking less of black people.
You know what, Mr. Sweden? Why are you discussing racism in the U.S. when you don't even live here? Did you read about us in a book or seen us on the news and now are the authority on how things work over here?
I'm marrying an American woman next Saturday. She's actually faced the problems of AA herself - it meant she could not get into the school mshe wanted to, basically. I also know a whole bunch of Americans of all stripes, types and colours, beside her.
We're fundamentally in agreement about AA's problems. We have a similar system to it over here, and it actually works, because the greater inequalities have largely been evened out. In this case, it ascertains that minorities can get educations and jobs at the same level as the majorities. An example is the system ensuring that women have access to science Ph.D scholarships, which is necessary because the tenured professors making the call on who gets these slots is pretty much exclusively male, and this prevents any bias from causing problems. It also, at worst, means that a male student who wants a Ph.D. very badly will need to wait a year more for it, but can then rack up some real-world work experience all the while, improving his chances the next year. This only works, in the first place, though, because of the system of free education and so on and so forth we have here.
I really wish you'd take a less confrontational tone, Zorvan. We're really not disagreeing a lot here, and you do have some good points. We should be able to discuss these things amicably, I think.
I have a question for all those of you who defend the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (that means 'bad word'). Have you ever had a political movement, or several, focused on removing rights from you because of something you have no power to change, nor would want to change because it is a bedrock of your personality and identity? I'm guessing no. Black people have had this (c.f. slavery, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Clan). LGBT people still do (c.f. Proposition 8 in California, Fred Phelps and associates, etc.).
Proposition 8? are you high?
This is one of those things that people toss out there so they can focus on some narrow thing. As opposed to the entire thing...
The US is supposed to be based on a Democratic Republic. The concept of "majority rule" and gay marriage whether you support it or not.. Was put to a vote and failed. The courts of california over-ruled the voters (goes directly against the system) and Proposition 8 was the voters saying "oh no you don't".
This is about system... If you want to pass gay marriage then like anything else you go out and convince people to vote for it. You don't sideline the system or do an end run to get around how things work.
In effect it would have been the same thing as filing a lawsuit because Obama was elected president. Then having the court toss out his election... Proposition 8 only existed because the system had been VIOLATED.
I don't care what someone does... what they believe etc
What I do care about is "system" and the moment you do an end run around it.... You have opened the door so that the next time the end run might not be in your favor.
I'm from VT... guess what? It was the first stae in the US to pass "gay marriage" by the system instead of by the court. Even tho it was through a veto over-ride it was still done within the system.
The solution to much of anything is to get people to identify and relate to your point of view and gain support for your cause.
Oh and yes I'm a "white male" in a mixed race family but they don't hold it against me... imagine that.
Comments
Having known quite a few women over the years, yes, I've met a few who at least raise an eyebrow at phrases like that. I did live through the feminist movement, after all.
And offensive might be a tad strong. Insensitive might be a better word. But let's not get hung up on one phrase, Lynx. The crux of the argument here is how we, as a species, can treat each other better if we just stop for a moment and think about where our words come from. As I've said before, intent is certainly important, but perception is at least equally important. We cannot consider ourselves worldly, or even cultured, unless we grasp that.
I have feelings but I feel no reason to wear them on my sleeve. And this doens't mean I haven't before but with age and intelligence comes wisdom and maturity...some people move at different paces I suppose. But having less freedoms in this context usually a result of more and more people finding more and more things offensive and then they want everyone else to wear their each and every individuals feelings on their sleeves as well.
I think having a simple /ignore is enough to quell the ail (for most people sound of mind that is)...there really isn't a need to have a coded multivortexed chat system that can read peoples minds and zap them before they type something or w/e.
If someone says something you don't like or find offensive...step 1 is “/ignore”...step 2 is “get over it”...step 3 is “move on to something more important rather than wallowing in a state of con-tempt over mere words”
PIRATE LORDS
Easily one of the most memorable days of my MMO gaming was the day I realized I could disable zone chat. The relief from the tension alone would have been worth it, but to my surprise the immersion of the game environment increased substantially. Done and done, it's off for good.
Guild chat = tastes great, less filling
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
Word. There is for sure lack of empathy from their side.
I don't think this is the type of debate I would want to start on a gaming forum. We can start talking about all the special rights and protections people get... and which paticular group gets none of those... but this isn't the place for it.
As to the article...
General chat is probably the first thing most people shut off. Or use as a tool to ignore as many idiots as possible quickly.
Companies don't enforce community guide lines because of the money they lose. Someone who worked for Mythic should know all about "we'll investage the player and take appropraite action" really means "have a nice day, but we aren't doing anything about it."
So what we need are better tools.... like the abilitty to ignore an entire account. So that 15,000 level 1 alts on it are automaticly ignored.
The ability for that same ignore list to be accessed by all of our characters etc
The only bad part of general chat is that new people can't get help... they are either lost in the drool spam or never seen because of the volume of people who have left the channel.
I agree that certain groups in society may be a bit too sensitive to occasional careless language and would do well to just take the high road. But one still must acknowledge the fact that words like these are, in absolute fact, rooted in hatred. You can place them in any light-hearted context you like, but the histories behind these words are inheritably malicious.
Perhaps people do feel in an anonymous outlet like an MMO that this is simply slang. These people go about peppering their guild chats and trade channels with a liberal dosage of derogatory euphemisms. I have read a few people, in defending the use of such language, use such phrases as "in the real world" and "it's perfectly acceptable." They are, of course, speaking from their own perspective as if it were universally commonplace. This seems to be a character trait many younger people share.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Can you imagine working next to the person who says "this job is gay" or perhaps spouts off the "N" word at his place of employment as freely and confidently as he would in his favorite virtual town? In using this language you are setting yourself up to be perceived very poorly by a large number of people. Some of which may sign your "perfectably acceptable" and "real world" paycheck.
The author mentions that "words have value." The language one uses greatly reflects on the character of the person.
My apoligies Antarious for derailing your efforts to pull this meandering topic back on track.
~R~
I have a question for all those of you who defend the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (that means 'bad word'). Have you ever had a political movement, or several, focused on removing rights from you because of something you have no power to change, nor would want to change because it is a bedrock of your personality and identity? I'm guessing no. Black people have had this (c.f. slavery, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Clan). LGBT people still do (c.f. Proposition 8 in California, Fred Phelps and associates, etc.).
When was the last time someone tried to push you off your big pile of privilege? An Englishman in Wales will be looked askance at, but he can leave Wales. A white man in a black neighborhood may not feel safe - but a black man will find that most of the US is a 'white neighborhood'. Discrimination remains rife, and treating it like it doesn't exist is not only not the solution, it's part of the problem.
Bigotry comes in a sliding scale. It's not a binary thing, where either you're a bigot or you're not. Hell, I have my own bigotries, which I will freely admit is a bad thing. There's no difference in kind between someone who says "you throw like a girl" and a member of the Ku Klux Klan - only one in scale and direction. It's simply a question of how much energy you put into denigrating other human beings.
Firstly, let me congratulate you on correctly saying 'because he couldnt care less'. So many of your countrymen can't seem to get the grammar of that simple statement correct.
Now, for the people arguing that definitions and acceptable usage of words change over time: Yes, the do. However these new uses and definitions are always fought against and argued against. It's the nature of evolution. Generation Y wants 'gay' to mean 'lame' but generation X find it offensive. The 2 generations argue and one of them win. Probably generation Y. By the time generation Z comes along generation X will be dieing and therefore unable to argue their case.
The main objection to 'gay' meaning 'lame' is that it implies that being 'gay', meaning homosexual, is a bad thing. The same evolution of language happened with 'lame'. It used to mean:
'Lame Lame, a. [Compar. Lamer; superl. Lamest.]
[OE. lame, AS. lama; akin to D. lam, G. lahm,OHG., Dan., & Sw. lam, Icel. lami, Russ. lomate to break, lomota rheumatism.]
1.
(a) Moving with pain or difficulty on account of injury, defect, or temporary obstruction of a function; as, a lame leg, arm, or muscle.
(b) To some degree disabled by reason of the imperfect action of a limb; crippled; as, a lame man. ``Lame of one leg.'' --Arbuthnot. ``Lame in both his feet.'' --2 Sam. ix. 13. ``He fell, and became lame.'' --2 Sam. iv. 4.'
Now it also means 'not good'
Language has always evolved. People have always fought against it. Life goes on.
This is incidentally pretty denigrating of disabled people. Who, again, have more than enough problems already. Do you mean to argue that because Generation Y is too stupid to realize that using certain words is hurtful, that makes it okay? Or do you just mean to say that people who are different from you have no feelings and should be disregarded as thinking humans?
This thread is indicative of some serious problems in youth culture. Pretty much all youth culture, too, except for a few isolated enclaves. Youth must be taught the consequences of their actions, and apparently, noone has bothered to teach that the consequences of casual bigotry are, well, problematic at best.
And what's wrong with non-derogatory pejoratives? Can't we find ways to say something is bad without also saying that some of our fellow humans are?
Mindless or unthinking bigotry in phrases often comes from mindless or unthinking people, and although it's sensible to try explain to them the offense they are causing, you need to be aware you may well be unable to get through to them - but that does not make the effort worthless. If they insult or upset other players then the people running the game are absolutely right to act to prevent it happening - if something offends though, I always prefer first trying to explain what the offense was, before shouting for the cops to lock up the 'offender'. You might be able to get them to realise what they did and change their behaviour, which is surely a far better result than getting them a ban from an online game. Shout for the cops after you know persuasion won't work, not as the first reponse based on your own assumptions that you can't ever argue with 'people like that' - which is also, in the proper sense, prejudice.
Whist I'd be pretty upset at most of the examples of word usage that have been mentioned so far in this thread though, and all appear worth pursuing and arguing against, I'm concerned that there appears to be a growing belief that any of us have a 'right' NOT to be offended by what others say or think, which I'm not convinced is true at all. Also, remember that being offended on behalf of other people can sometimes of itself be patronising.
A better world would in part consist of one where people at least thought before speaking, or typing. Work towards it yourself, encourage it in others, but don't hold your breath waiting for it.
Your columns are the highlight on MMORPG.com Sanya.
I love reading them! Keep it up!
And people who overgeneralize an entire ethnic group aren't "racist"? Because that's what you just did. Maybe I should be offended. Unfortunately, I'm laughing too much at your ignorance to be offended.
Let me explain something to you as a "straight white male". First off, there is no "white" male anymore. I'm willing to bet the "black", "brown", "yellow", and "red" male don't really exist as a "race" anymore either. You go through anyone's family tree in the 21st century and you will find the intermixing of different racial bloodlines. The only "race" that means, or should mean, anything anymore is the "human race".
So don't try to perpetrate how "the straight white male" is somehow automatically "insensitive" because we haven't been "disenfranchised". If you really want to go there, perhaps I was "disenfranchised" when I had to pay my own way through college while other "races" were given scholoarships BECAUSE of their race ( United Negro College Fund, NAACP, etc. ).
Yet I don't blame someone of that particular racial background for using those scholarships, anymore than I blame someone being given a job because of their racial background through "affirmative action". I blame the government, and people like yourself, who continue to divide the races while proclaiming the opposite. If idiots would stop looking for "racial" bullshit in every sentence and every eye movement and every hairstyle, stop using race as a "handicap" and an excuse for why they don't have what the other guy has, maybe we COULD all just get along.
I refer you to my question above. You're one of the people I'd like to see answer that.
About race: It was a ficticious concept to begin with, even when it was invented in the 16th century to justify genocide and slavery. The concept today exists as a cultural label attached to certian genetic phenotypes within the human species - and in the minds of bigots who still use it to justify the unjustifiable.
When you can be certain that no person is ever discriminated against due to skin color, sexual orientation, gender (or even being transgendered), then you can call the various affirmative action systems unfair. Until then, you as a white, straight male, are sitting on a huge pile of privilege that makes a dragon's hoard look like pocket change. And yes, if you don't realize that you are sitting on that pile of privilege and looking down at everyone who does not, then you are insensitive. It has bupkis to do with being white, or straight, or male. It has everything to do with the side effects of having those traits, namely that you will never find yourself being inescapably persecuted or discriminated against - and Englishman can leave Wales. A white man can leave a black neighborhood. A black man cannot stop being black. A gay man cannot stop being gay. So stop acting like they can.
One of the reasons that I continue to play Guild Wars, is because the opposite of this is true. Once you pay the box price, Arena Net stops earning money from you (sure, they hope that you will buy add-ons for your account, but there is no guarantee) ; so they don't have to worry about losing monthly subs when they kick people for being foul-mouthed bigots. And, actually, they may even earn more money by kicking said bigot's account--some of these players are stupid enough to buy a second account in a feeble attempt to 'get revenge' for the first account getting banned.
As for the tools that you mentioned, they already exist in GW. when you ignore a player, it ignores all characters on the account. Your ignore list (and your friends list) is tied to your account.
So, in general, GW maintains a fairly positive and mature general chat. New players are frequently able to get reliable help (if you are in a populated district that is), and conversations hover around the range of 18-21y/o maturity level.
To get back to Sanya's main topic, and once again, another great article here Sanya.
Most of the situations you explained there are the norm for the majority of Guild Wars. (At this point some of you may be thinking that this is shameless plug for GW, but honestly these are my experiences with the game) When someone makes a stray comment like the 'Nvidia's gay' comment, people in GW are usually quick to respond about how the comment was insensitive, maybe make a joke about it, and then move on. Sure there may be a stray 'Your Mom's Gay' or something similar, but those people are usually put on ignore quickly. And if people are being rude and abusive after being rebuked in general chat, then they get reported. Most first offenders get a 2-3 day ban, repeat offenders get longer bans, and the most serious cases have their account revoked and their IP banned (but only after investigation by several devs; and even then, there is an appeals process).
For bugs, since in GW you don't pay a monthly fee, most people don't expect to get rewarded, or have their items restored when a bug is reported. One might think that this would drive people to report less bugs, but the opposite happened. Enough bugs were getting reported with high frequency through the support ticket system, that they opened an official wiki with a section for bug reporting, so repeat bug reports wouldn't clog the CS. But, as an added bonus, even though the devs are not obligated to the players through monthly fee, items lost to bugs (which happens so infrequently, you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning) are usually restored.
As far as CS presence in GW, it happens so often that the CS/devs are not referred to by character name, but by their first names instead (although for some of the devs, this isn't fair since they used their real name as their character name). Even though most of the Arena Net development team has stopped working on GW in favor of working on GW2, many of the devs spend time in game just to hang out and earn titles like the rest of us lowly players.
Now for the disillusionment. The 'warm fuzzy internet' portion of GW as described above, is limited only to PvE areas. Once a player decides to hop out of the PvE line, and set foot into the PvP portions of the game, it becomes a ruthless, gutter mouthed, solo-swagger, "join my guild or we will rape you.” game. Basically the only way to learn PvP in GW is to make friends with a PvX player in some late-game dungeon, or just stick it out in the Random Arena until someone notices you. And speaking of the random arena, the maturity level drops from that 18-21y/o level, down to "8y/o read the bathroom stall, and is now repeating only the swear words"
*prepares self to be called a GW fanboi*
Edit: I make it sound like there are a lot of bugs in GW, but there are relatively few nowadays. The most serious bugs recently are tied to the monthly skill-balance changes. When the skill balances occur, the changes to the skills sometimes breaks AI behaviour, or makes some areas of PvE unplayable becuase the AI is now godly due to skill changes intended for PvP.
Yeah, general chat can be highly amusing. It is interesting how certain words or phrases can touch players hot buttons.
The ones that crack me up is the guys professing love for a female avatar, when more chance than not the avatar has a male player behind it.
When I was a counselor in UO we had a guild that required it 's members to use a phrase that had the word rape in it when they killed someone. They were advised to change it and refused. The entire guild accounts were then banned across the 3 servers they operated on. That was a big splash as there were some prominent accounts in it.
I agree that it has been a bit of an odd month as far as smacktalk goes. I play EVE Online, where smacktalk is king, and I don't think I've had anyone smack in local all month. After combat it's been "good fight" instead of "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries". Hell, even the hulk we caught mining in a belt in lowsec and tried to ransom didn't smack, and that was highly unusual. (We ended up blowing him up because he wouldn't pay.
)
-Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
I refer you to my question above. You're one of the people I'd like to see answer that.
About race: It was a ficticious concept to begin with, even when it was invented in the 16th century to justify genocide and slavery. The concept today exists as a cultural label attached to certian genetic phenotypes within the human species - and in the minds of bigots who still use it to justify the unjustifiable.
When you can be certain that no person is ever discriminated against due to skin color, sexual orientation, gender (or even being transgendered), then you can call the various affirmative action systems unfair. Until then, you as a white, straight male, are sitting on a huge pile of privilege that makes a dragon's hoard look like pocket change. And yes, if you don't realize that you are sitting on that pile of privilege and looking down at everyone who does not, then you are insensitive. It has bupkis to do with being white, or straight, or male. It has everything to do with the side effects of having those traits, namely that you will never find yourself being inescapably persecuted or discriminated against - and Englishman can leave Wales. A white man can leave a black neighborhood. A black man cannot stop being black. A gay man cannot stop being gay. So stop acting like they can.
Sorry, but your the one who needs to take a step back.
So everything is so "unfair" to others that aren't white?
I think Obama pretty much blew your argument out of the water. Everytime you or somebody else wants to pull the "I'm being held back because of my race" card, I'm going to refer you to Obama. Or maybe Colin Powell. Or Clarence Thomas. Or any of the others who somehow managed to do what you apparently think can't be done.
And affirmative action does not make things equal. It in fact widens the divide and causes more resentment.
And if I'm so privileged, why aren't I making 100k-200k-1 million dollars a year unlike many people of other racial backgrounds? It couldn't possibly be because those people put in the time and effort to get where they are instead of listening to how "held down" they were, could it? I mean, everything is handed to us "white folk", ain't it?
You make me laugh and cry at the same time, dude. Wake up and join the future.
Really had to put some stress on the brain cells to figure out these comments come from straight white males? I mean really ... black ... gay ... women ... other minorities, are more than likely ruled out right? How about you add ignorant to it next time so you don't lump some of the decent white straight males in with the trash you want to make us all out to be .... thanks.
With one hand you hold up Obama and Powell and the rest, who have accomplished what they have not because of, but in spite of the system they faced. Their achievements are something to be proud of, not something to take away from, but you do, when you talk about affirmative action.
I don't know how much you make a year. Probably less than some people with darker skin than yours. But you probably also make more than a lot of other people with a different teint, as well. The privilege you have is not a monetary one, it is cultural. It's the simple fact of being a member of the majority culture of the nation you live in. Now I know there's examples of affirmative action meaning that people who are not minority-members get screwed - scholarships being all but impossible to get, schools being practically closed to non-minority people, etc. But those are symptoms of broader problems within the US society, as I see it. They're a problem because while advocating for black rights, asian rights, gay rights, etc. etc. is all good and well, people are failing to take into consideration human rights.
The American society is geared towards keeping the poor poor, and the rich rich. This benefits the rich a lot, and since they can then keep the poor entertained and distracted from real problems, noone else cares. As well, a lot of anger that should rightfully be directed against economic oppression is instead pointed at, say, the black guy who got a scholarship, or the asian chick who managed to get into some school, or something. Instead of agitating for a system that ensures a high level of education for everyone (like, say, Sweden's) all the people whom it would benefit best spend their time at each others' throats over tiny, relatively inconsequential matters.
The worker's movement in the US was basically defeated by racism. White workers went on strike, were replaced by black workers, causing a schism in the unions, making it about white against black, rather than worker against capital. That did not happen over here (Sweden). As a result, we have five weeks vacation, months of paid sick days, and a year's paid paternal leave, while you have two weeks vacation if you're lucky, no paid sick days, and any paternal leave is unpaid as well. Basically, the poor people got screwed by being turned against each other. The end result is that noone noticed who was really getting their jollies at the cost of the working class.
Do I sound like a socialist? Sure. I am one. Socialism, you see, means more people with higher educations, better health, and higher salaries, meaning more taxes get paid and more money gets pumped back into the economy. It's simply good business sense on a societal scale.
With one hand you hold up Obama and Powell and the rest, who have accomplished what they have not because of, but in spite of the system they faced. Their achievements are something to be proud of, not something to take away from, but you do, when you talk about affirmative action.
You know what, Mr. Sweden? Why are you discussing racism in the U.S. when you don't even live here? Did you read about us in a book or seen us on the news and now are the authority on how things work over here?
My views of affrimative action do not take away from those individuals I mentioned or anyone else. Affirmative action in this country basically says "if you don't have X numbver of non-caucasian employees, you will be penalized". So you know what happens? People are hired not because of their qualifications, but because of their skin color. Is that not racist to you? Sure seems so to me. And what you get from this system is workers ( both caucasian and minority workers ) who may have been more qualified, but weren't the "needed" "minority" , losing out on that job because of affirmative action, and therefore feeling resentment.Resentment breeds hate, pal. And that is what affirmative action really ends up doing, dividing even further rather than uniting or making equal.
The idea behind affirmative action, and what affirmative action really is, is two different things entirely.
For example, the idea behind communism isn't bad. Yet what have we seen from every country/nation that chose the communist way? Exactly the opposite of the stated intentions. Affirmative action is the same way, a good idea with lousy implementation that achieves exactly the opposite of its intended effect.
It would seem that the columnist has hypocritically discredited herself by offending the “straight white males” who chose to take offense. Add to that she uses name calling to try and add weight to her argument by using the label “scum”....what's next??
And some others are trying to make this a complex multi-rooted emotional shock and in doing so miss the simple realities.
EXP A: Words like “All should be treated equally and fairly” Have merit and are reality because we all come into this world the same way..We all should have the same right to live and grow. These are words worth something and based in reality and words worth fighting for.
EXP B: “You are nothing but a worthless N.....” Is not based in reality or truth, it's ridiculous for anyone to come along and suddenly give the words power (just as ridiculous as once thinking the world was flat in truth) . If it offends someone then it is that someone who gives it power, otherwise it's simple mindless and meaningless rabble.
If someone tries to unjustly take my shelter away or sustenance then they better prepare themselves for a fight because I will fight and kill if need be.
If someone comes along and calls me a (insert w/e) I have a choice to determine my own feelings for they(that someone) have no power in this arena. The difference resides in what I decide to feel and not in what they said.
This is key to a healthy mental state.
PIRATE LORDS
Thanks for the info. I never knew that!
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Thanks for the info. I never knew that!
Me neither. I'm sure he's willing to provide us with his source of information for our enlightnement though.
I also find it entertaining that, had this thread been started by a normal member in the forums, it would have already been locked and/or deleted for being troll and flame bait, yet because it's an "article", it's excused. Sanya knew what this thread would devolve into. If she didn't, then I seriously question her abilities as a journalist, writer or whatever she considers herself.
It's a matter of historic record, and most certainly didn't help improve race relations, although with the prior behavior of whites enslaving blacks, I'm sure most white people didn't need much help thinking less of black people.
I'm marrying an American woman next Saturday. She's actually faced the problems of AA herself - it meant she could not get into the school mshe wanted to, basically. I also know a whole bunch of Americans of all stripes, types and colours, beside her.
We're fundamentally in agreement about AA's problems. We have a similar system to it over here, and it actually works, because the greater inequalities have largely been evened out. In this case, it ascertains that minorities can get educations and jobs at the same level as the majorities. An example is the system ensuring that women have access to science Ph.D scholarships, which is necessary because the tenured professors making the call on who gets these slots is pretty much exclusively male, and this prevents any bias from causing problems. It also, at worst, means that a male student who wants a Ph.D. very badly will need to wait a year more for it, but can then rack up some real-world work experience all the while, improving his chances the next year. This only works, in the first place, though, because of the system of free education and so on and so forth we have here.
I really wish you'd take a less confrontational tone, Zorvan. We're really not disagreeing a lot here, and you do have some good points. We should be able to discuss these things amicably, I think.
Proposition 8? are you high?
This is one of those things that people toss out there so they can focus on some narrow thing. As opposed to the entire thing...
The US is supposed to be based on a Democratic Republic. The concept of "majority rule" and gay marriage whether you support it or not.. Was put to a vote and failed. The courts of california over-ruled the voters (goes directly against the system) and Proposition 8 was the voters saying "oh no you don't".
This is about system... If you want to pass gay marriage then like anything else you go out and convince people to vote for it. You don't sideline the system or do an end run to get around how things work.
In effect it would have been the same thing as filing a lawsuit because Obama was elected president. Then having the court toss out his election... Proposition 8 only existed because the system had been VIOLATED.
I don't care what someone does... what they believe etc
What I do care about is "system" and the moment you do an end run around it.... You have opened the door so that the next time the end run might not be in your favor.
I'm from VT... guess what? It was the first stae in the US to pass "gay marriage" by the system instead of by the court. Even tho it was through a veto over-ride it was still done within the system.
The solution to much of anything is to get people to identify and relate to your point of view and gain support for your cause.
Oh and yes I'm a "white male" in a mixed race family but they don't hold it against me... imagine that.