Is this a bit too far..? "HITLER was right"

jangodarkblade1·Sep 29, 2017·31 votes·3,064 views

I was admittedly doing awful in this ranked game and some of my teammates got mad. This one player in particular noticed my clan tag (Jew) and wrote quite an essay while the game was going on about the one and only....

Adolf Hitler :-)

I understand people can get a little frustrated sometimes in ranked, but I'm pretty sure these comments were a bit much and uncalled for.

(I'm not even Jewish but it did make me )

85 Comments

Telephone BoothSep 29, 201746 votes

Why is your clan tag "jew"?

Tribbles FoxfolkSep 29, 20174 votes

[{quoted}](name=Telephone Booth,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=x5uVvuUv,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2017-09-29T05:30:40.368+0000)

Why is your clan tag "jew"?

Because it's a really poor "joke" that people think is funny, like "D|CKS" or "KKK".

Clubs were a decent idea. Club tags were a mistake.

Not saying the post-game abuse was justified, because "Hitler was right" is something that really should never be allowed and probably should result in an automatic 14-day ban or a semi-permanent chat restriction.

But putting the club's tag as "Jew" is not exactly casting a positive light on anyone there either. Stern warnings, at the bare minimum, should be issued for these tags.

DariusDemiurgeSep 30, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Eevee Girl Alex,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=x5uVvuUv,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2017-09-29T23:28:46.622+0000)

Because it's a really poor "joke" that people think is funny, like "D|CKS" or "KKK".

Clubs were a decent idea. Club tags were a mistake.

Not saying the post-game abuse was justified, because "Hitler was right" is something that really should never be allowed and probably should result in an automatic 14-day ban or a semi-permanent chat restriction.

But putting the club's tag as "Jew" is not exactly casting a positive light on anyone there either. Stern warnings, at the bare minimum, should be issued for these tags.

Nothing was wrong about the "right" comment. That is not what should be punished. The problem was the other shit the guy said about the ovens and what not.

Rand0mH3r0XSep 30, 20171 votes

Exactly. Like when someone goes out of there way to make a clan tag like GERS, and creates a screen name that starts something like "IHate***". I just couldn't believe it when I saw that.

Troy242621Sep 29, 201715 votes

Pretty sure that can earn an instant permaban.

DuskDaUmbreonSep 29, 20171 votes

Close. I don't think I've seen Riot go straight to a permaban for this, if they haven't done anything else before. 14-day, certainly, but not perma.

Of course, though, this could be the line between "way too far" (which is what most racial things get put into), and "Dude, way too fucking far, what the flying fuck were you thinking, get the hell off the internet now".

Flawless FetusSep 29, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Pretty sure that can earn an instant permaban.

Mmhm. Submite a ticket, jango.

VictoriousBardSep 29, 20178 votes

If you didn't already report them, file a support ticket and include the uncensored screenshot.

YerroFeverSep 29, 20176 votes

If you didn't report them for the post game chat, I think you should submit a player support ticket with the report. That's really unacceptable IMO.

DarkeusSep 29, 20175 votes

Report their asses. :-) Submit a ticket.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20173 votes

You have a mute button, use it.

Silent GravitySep 29, 201723 votes

Mute isn't a function in post game chat.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20174 votes

what possible reason could anyone have for using the post game chat whatsoever. You have only yourself to blame if you don't just hit X immediately. There's literally no reason to use it.

SEKAISep 29, 201719 votes

{quoted}

what possible reason could anyone have for using the post game chat whatsoever. You have only yourself to blame if you don't just hit X immediately. There's literally no reason to use it.

Having a function to avoid further abuse doesn't mean it is suddenly the responsibility of the victim to evade the abuse rather than the responsibility of the attacker to not perpetrate abuse.

It's not wrong to promote self preservation and self defence, but it is wrong to suggest that when an abuse happens it is entirely the victim's fault for not running away fast enough.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20174 votes

It just seems childish. If you can be hurt by words on a screen I'm not sure you're even mature enough to own a computer.

SEKAISep 29, 201723 votes

{quoted}

It just seems childish. If you can be hurt by words on a screen I'm not sure you're even mature enough to own a computer.

No, you are childish.

Words are not incapable of causing damage to a person. Words are far more powerful than any other physical abuse; in fact, if a child is bullied by their peers or even parents, the thing that would do the most damage to them is the words said to them during the beating/bullying.

You're also assuming every person using the internet is completely healthy without other abuses and personal circumstances pressuring them outside of the interactions on the computer. Unfortunately, not everyone is in a good state of mind, and they may be dealing with real-life hardships while seeking some breathing space online; welp good job, you just destroyed that place for them too for being a dick completely unnecessarily for no good reason.

Also, the main point is not even about the nature of words, it is about the fact blaming the victim exclusively does NOT address the issue at all, it in fact misses the point entirely and makes the matter even worse.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20171 votes

[deleted]

SEKAISep 29, 201717 votes

{quoted}

I can take a punch, given that my mother has borderline bipolar who especially in my younger years could freak out under pressure (such as during my exam period) and called me all sorts of bad names while physically abusing me and occasionally threaten to suicide. My father is more laxed but there are a few buttons that I couldn't press without getting shanked across the face and a few kicks on my stomach.

I also have had a period of uncertainty where I was so psychologically pressed that I had dreams about big life failures or straight up dying almost everyday. It was so common that it eventually became a gag I talked about with my friends and siblings, mainly about what sort of ways I died or which failure I had in my dreams.

It may be easy for you to just go all "damn you're pathetic" just because you want to speak random junk to random people across the internet, and that they don't enjoy it as you do. But you misses the point of being not pathetic, that is to be considerate, to have some basic manners, and to not blame victims for an abuse (which may even be you yourself created).

Understand that you're pushing the responsibility entirely on the receiving end of your (or someone else's) shit. If someone who naturally and rightfully doesn't like others cross their boundary is "having no mental fortitude or willpower whatsoever" and "epitome of pathetic", then what makes you (or other trolls and junk spewers) as a trashtalker, an invader, a brute with tread other's spaces as if they're your backyard, and a self-righteous judgemental fuck who has no sense of actual righteousness?

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20171 votes

You have a mute button. There's literally no reason not to press it. But you're going to NOT press it, and then complain when you experience adverse effects for actively choosing not to take a course of action with no downside that solves your problem.

That's just masochistically intentionally seeking out a bad time and willing taking the "abuse" and actively choosing not to fix your situation. So no I don't feel bad for anyone who gets "harassed" in an online game with a mute button and I think they're pathetic and more importantly conniving people who intentionally seek victimhood.

SEKAISep 29, 201715 votes

{quoted}

You have a mute button. There's literally no reason not to press it. But you're going to NOT press it, and then complain when you experience adverse effects for actively choosing not to take a course of action with no downside that solves your problem.

That's just masochistically intentionally seeking out a bad time and willing taking the "abuse" and actively choosing not to fix your situation. So no I don't feel bad for anyone who gets "harassed" in an online game with a mute button and I think they're pathetic and more importantly conniving people who intentionally seek victimhood.

We've gone through this already, there is no need to go in circles.

I said this:

{quoted}

Having a function to avoid further abuse doesn't mean it is suddenly the responsibility of the victim to evade the abuse rather than the responsibility of the attacker to not perpetrate abuse.

It's not wrong to promote self preservation and self defence, but it is wrong to suggest that when an abuse happens it is entirely the victim's fault for not running away fast enough.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20172 votes

If you're unwillingly to solve your problems what right do you have to complain that you have problems? Jesus christ how helpless can you possibly be

SEKAISep 29, 201711 votes

{quoted}

If you're unwillingly to solve your problems what right do you have to complain that you have problems? Jesus christ how helpless can you possibly be

Why is it the victim's problem for not covering their ears when someone talks shit to them?

Your starting point is already wrong.

Again, we've been through this already, there is no point to go in circles.

Muting is a protection for the victim during an abuse, it is not the solution of the said abuse. Having a tool to evade further abuse doesn't mean the abuser is not held responsible, because they shouldn't have abused in the first place.

While people should use muting, sure, but as I've said and I will say 1 more time:

"It's not wrong to promote self preservation and self defence, but it is wrong to suggest that when an abuse happens it is entirely the victim's fault for not running away fast enough."

Again, your starting point is already wrong, because you place absolutely no responsibility on the attacker, but rather you complain why people can't run away fast enough before anything happens or right after something happens. It's like if I were to shoot you in the face, I then say it's completely justified because you didn't run away before I pull the gun out or that you didn't out-run or block the bullet. That is absurd.

That is all.

GrievousFetusSep 29, 20172 votes

first, quit using the word "abuse". a faceless stranger saying words online to you is not "abuse".

Second, who cares who's responsible, when you should care about the practical outcomes.

SEKAISep 29, 201712 votes

{quoted}

I did, I see a pathetic loser so easily hurt by words on a screen that they would vindictively seek to get accounts shut down, which means hours and possibly money down the drain, all for the sake of their feelings, which are 1) irrelevant and 2) would have righted themselves five minutes later regardless of their actions anyway.

Welcome to real life, where interpersonal boundaries, consideration of others, basic manners and decency, responsibilities, and action consequences are a thing, Mr. Definitely-Not-Loser.

SEKAISep 29, 201710 votes

{quoted}

"welcome to real life" as you defend someone solely on the grounds of hurt feelings. It's like you've never even experienced real life yourself.

We are not going anywhere if you can't stop going in circles on things we've already gone through in full and rational details (and multiple times), and that if you can't stop throwing assertions/accusations and random narratives without justifications.

Either way, this argument is done and dusted in my eyes, given that we've more or less gone through it twice already, and that you've been reduced to bitter bickering now.

SEKAISep 29, 20179 votes

{quoted}

well, I'm glad you've at least finally conceded how irrational you're being and the fact you're creating an impasse. No problem, I forgive you.

lol k.

Dw, I'm glad and forgive you too.

LordGeovanniSep 30, 20172 votes

i agree that if what people say to you over the computer over the internet gets to you, you should probably not be allowed to or you yourself make your self not use sites where you can be communicated to by other people. People have no real obligation to think about anothers feelings over what they see to be the truth.

kasfasSep 29, 20172 votes

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

That's a pretty important saying.

Another saying I know well is "An opinion only has value if you give it so".

Basically what that person says only has an effect on you if you let it. Words aren't harmful, actions are. If your actions make those words harmful then it's not the fault of the words. No one is forcing you to listen. No one is forcing you to think. You choose to do those things on your own. And to even make the claim that words have a bigger impact than physical violence is rediculous.

That's NOT to say that this was a justified or necessary statement, but people really need to learn that taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners.

EvilDustManSep 29, 20171 votes

{quoted}

That's NOT to say that this was a justified or necessary statement, but people really need to learn that taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners.

People really need to learn not to insult others either.

marpatt11Sep 29, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

That's a pretty important saying.

Another saying I know well is "An opinion only has value if you give it so".

Basically what that person says only has an effect on you if you let it. Words aren't harmful, actions are. If your actions make those words harmful then it's not the fault of the words. No one is forcing you to listen. No one is forcing you to think. You choose to do those things on your own. And to even make the claim that words have a bigger impact than physical violence is rediculous.

That's NOT to say that this was a justified or necessary statement, but people really need to learn that taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners.

I bet you also have heard the phrase "The pen is mightier then the sword" because it is true, and while I can see your point and I also have to give mine, if I were to start attacking you on a personal level (or what I thought to be) would you say that "eh lmao words can hurt anybody" they can hurt everybody, they can also not hurt anyone. But since you refuse to look at the Op lemme give you a quick reminder, this is a guy, who is judging the Op by their clan and saying one of the worst humans in history who slaughtered millions of innocents and created chaos for decades, is right, and that person, by the idea of hitler should be killed. That is what the person attacking the Op is saying, that he should die just because he thought he was a jew, also may I note, a lot of the reason I listen from people yelling at me with "non-harmful words" like kys, fuck you, and my favorite, your bad, is that so I can give a detailed report of what they said. Another reason is that I have a right to listen and combat it if I want to, for instance if someone started flaming someone and the person being flamed then muted the flamer and told the other team to then report the person he was flaming, he has a right to correct that, he has a right to fight that if he wants to, it is perfectly fine for someone to mute someone else because of their words and it also is perfectly fine for someone to (in a non aggresive way) fight that said flamer, but downright saying "Words can't hurt anybody" is downright ignorant of the state, they can, and will hurt someone, because no matter who you are or what you do, words have the power to hurt you.

kasfasSep 29, 20172 votes

{quoted}

I bet you also have heard the phrase "The pen is mightier then the sword"

Yes, and that's true because to combat an idea, you only really win if you come up with a better idea. Resorting to violence or phycical acts over words is foolish.

Words might cause wars, but they also end them. The only killing is done by the sword.

because it is true, and while I can see your point and I also have to give mine, if I were to start attacking you on a personal level (or what I thought to be) would you say that "eh lmao words can hurt anybody" they can hurt everybody, they can also not hurt anyone.

If you were to start attacking me personally, without knowing me whatsoever, is first call out your ad-hominem attack and then laugh at you for being unable to formulate an actual argument.

People like this guy in the chat are realistically not thinking or are just plain dumb. This must've been venting, or at least that's what I can extrapolate for how unsarcastic it is. Try telling me you've never been mad at someone on league and wished unspeakable things upon them even though you know you don't actually want that.

In reality, people say stuff all the time. You can't count on anyone coddling you to prevent you from hearing things you don't like.

But since you refuse to look at the Op lemme give you a quick reminder, this is a guy, who is judging the Op by their clan and saying one of the worst humans in history who slaughtered millions of innocents and created chaos for decades, is right, and that person, by the idea of hitler should be killed. That is what the person attacking the Op is saying, that he should die just because he thought he was a jew,

I'm cutting in right here as this seemed to be the end of this point. Once again, being ad-hominem attacked, especially when the other individual has no idea who you are and is judging you purely based on something superficial is childish and immature. This person has no substance in his statement and therefore should have no impact.

If you get offended by that idiotic statement, then I have no sympathy. Sorry to say.

also may I note, a lot of the reason I listen from people yelling at me with "non-harmful words" like kys, fuck you, and my favorite, your bad, is that so I can give a detailed report of what they said. Another reason is that I have a right to listen and combat it if I want to, for instance if someone started flaming someone and the person being flamed then muted the flamer and told the other team to then report the person he was flaming, he has a right to correct that, he has a right to fight that if he wants to, it is perfectly fine for someone to mute someone else because of their words and it also is perfectly fine for someone to (in a non aggresive way) fight that said flamer,

It took me until now to realize that this has been two long run-on sentences. In future try using more periods. It's very hard to understand your point when everything is compressed together.

Now what you choose to do with someone's statement is fine, and if you wish to slander their reputation then that's your prerogative. But when you start silencing them because you don't like them, then how lon is it until that same rule is done to you? We need this person to be able to shit talk all he wants because the only people he's really hurting is himself and people who have relations with him.

but downright saying "Words can't hurt anybody" is downright ignorant of the state, they can, and will hurt someone, because no matter who you are or what you do, words have the power to hurt you.

Words don't have the power to hurt people if they choose not to be hurt.

My grandfather had cancer, my Uncle had cancer, my dad has cancer, and in all likelihood I am going to get cancer at some point in my life. That's no reason for people to not talk about cancer with me. That's no reason for me to be scared of words. I can choose to not think about cancer and get offended when people scream that yasuo or riven are cancer, but I don't. I choose to not take that stuff seriously, because it has no real substance, logic, or action behind it. It's not difficult to realize that words have no meaning without substance behind them. And even then, they can't do anything to you without action.

EvilDustManSep 29, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Yes, and that's true because to combat an idea, you only really win if you come up with a better idea. Resorting to violence or phycical acts over words is foolish.

Words might cause wars, but they also end them. The only killing is done by the sword.

If you were to start attacking me personally, without knowing me whatsoever, is first call out your ad-hominem attack and then laugh at you for being unable to formulate an actual argument.

People like this guy in the chat are realistically not thinking or are just plain dumb. This must've been venting, or at least that's what I can extrapolate for how unsarcastic it is. Try telling me you've never been mad at someone on league and wished unspeakable things upon them even though you know you don't actually want that.

In reality, people say stuff all the time. You can't count on anyone coddling you to prevent you from hearing things you don't like.

I'm cutting in right here as this seemed to be the end of this point. Once again, being ad-hominem attacked, especially when the other individual has no idea who you are and is judging you purely based on something superficial is childish and immature. This person has no substance in his statement and therefore should have no impact.

If you get offended by that idiotic statement, then I have no sympathy. Sorry to say.

It took me until now to realize that this has been two long run-on sentences. In future try using more periods. It's very hard to understand your point when everything is compressed together.

Now what you choose to do with someone's statement is fine, and if you wish to slander their reputation then that's your prerogative. But when you start silencing them because you don't like them, then how lon is it until that same rule is done to you? We need this person to be able to shit talk all he wants because the only people he's really hurting is himself and people who have relations with him.

Words don't have the power to hurt people if they choose not to be hurt.

My grandfather had cancer, my Uncle had cancer, my dad has cancer, and in all likelihood I am going to get cancer at some point in my life. That's no reason for people to not talk about cancer with me. That's no reason for me to be scared of words. I can choose to not think about cancer and get offended when people scream that yasuo or riven are cancer, but I don't. I choose to not take that stuff seriously, because it has no real substance, logic, or action behind it. It's not difficult to realize that words have no meaning without substance behind them. And even then, they can't do anything to you without action.

What's the value of anything beyond what we give them. We can eat gruel if we give it more value. Why do we value flavor. Or colors. Or life. Why are you on the internet, you could be doing better things.

Why are you playing League, a zero sum game?

Why do you have a job?

Why do you value living?

kasfasSep 30, 20171 votes

That's a philosophical point friend. If you really don't care about anything then you would go end yourself. I don't believe in that, I believe that there is inherent value in life, and living it in the best way possible.

There is an objectively best way to live, with small variations depending on each persons predispositions, and the first step in finding that way to live is to listen to what other people think is the best.

The best arguments will always win, and will dictate what the best way to live really is.

And to get to your point on subjective value of things, many things have changed in value over the course of human history. A significant number of fishing products, gold, diamonds, and other precious materials all fluctuate with supply and demand. The less of something there is the more intrinsic value it must have, and the more work it has put into it it can be taken out of it, the more intrinsic value it has. That's why diamonds ar emote valuable than coal, and why gruel is less valuable than steak.

EvilDustManSep 30, 20172 votes

{quoted}

That's a philosophical point friend. If you really don't care about anything then you would go end yourself. I don't believe in that, I believe that there is inherent value in life, and living it in the best way possible.

There is an objectively best way to live, with small variations depending on each persons predispositions, and the first step in finding that way to live is to listen to what other people think is the best.

The best arguments will always win, and will dictate what the best way to live really is.

And to get to your point on subjective value of things, many things have changed in value over the course of human history. A significant number of fishing products, gold, diamonds, and other precious materials all fluctuate with supply and demand. The less of something there is the more intrinsic value it must have, and the more work it has put into it it can be taken out of it, the more intrinsic value it has. That's why diamonds ar emote valuable than coal, and why gruel is less valuable than steak.

So yes, things do have a value to them beyond personal ability to dictate. Society dictates them based on the pleasure they give, even if the pleasure seems illogical(such as jewelry), because it is a societal value. This includes morals, and the words that other people use.

And these insults featured in the original post are morally repugnant, as deemed by society at large. 'Offensive', if you will. Therefore, it would be normal to be offended. What you do with that, of course, is simply report and move on.

Furthermore, words such as these are charged with malicious intent, which is it only normal for someone to react to malicious intent as if they were under attack. Insults are insulting, even if they are not true, because they are an attack from the outside.

There is an impetus on the receiver to keep a level head, but there is also a general impetus on people to not verbally attack others. The internet's anonymity has made people think they aren't subject to this and, somehow, given them the RIGHT to insult people.

For everyone else: Yea, you shouldn't overreact to insults, but being salty is not a god given right.

marpatt11Sep 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Yes, and that's true because to combat an idea, you only really win if you come up with a better idea. Resorting to violence or phycical acts over words is foolish.

Words might cause wars, but they also end them. The only killing is done by the sword.

If you were to start attacking me personally, without knowing me whatsoever, is first call out your ad-hominem attack and then laugh at you for being unable to formulate an actual argument.

People like this guy in the chat are realistically not thinking or are just plain dumb. This must've been venting, or at least that's what I can extrapolate for how unsarcastic it is. Try telling me you've never been mad at someone on league and wished unspeakable things upon them even though you know you don't actually want that.

In reality, people say stuff all the time. You can't count on anyone coddling you to prevent you from hearing things you don't like.

I'm cutting in right here as this seemed to be the end of this point. Once again, being ad-hominem attacked, especially when the other individual has no idea who you are and is judging you purely based on something superficial is childish and immature. This person has no substance in his statement and therefore should have no impact.

If you get offended by that idiotic statement, then I have no sympathy. Sorry to say.

It took me until now to realize that this has been two long run-on sentences. In future try using more periods. It's very hard to understand your point when everything is compressed together.

Now what you choose to do with someone's statement is fine, and if you wish to slander their reputation then that's your prerogative. But when you start silencing them because you don't like them, then how lon is it until that same rule is done to you? We need this person to be able to shit talk all he wants because the only people he's really hurting is himself and people who have relations with him.

Words don't have the power to hurt people if they choose not to be hurt.

My grandfather had cancer, my Uncle had cancer, my dad has cancer, and in all likelihood I am going to get cancer at some point in my life. That's no reason for people to not talk about cancer with me. That's no reason for me to be scared of words. I can choose to not think about cancer and get offended when people scream that yasuo or riven are cancer, but I don't. I choose to not take that stuff seriously, because it has no real substance, logic, or action behind it. It's not difficult to realize that words have no meaning without substance behind them. And even then, they can't do anything to you without action.

I agree on most of your points here. But as you said in your original post " but people really need to learn that taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners." yes, it is the listeners CHOICE to choose to take offense. But if you want facts and evidence to provide a description for a report then you have to listen and in my experience, a lot of the time people don't look at the options they have in that situation, I am also guilty of this. yes they have the option of taking offense but I feel like they also should have the option of of not muting, taking a stand so to say, and that is what a lot of people choose to do in league. All I really want is less of this kind of person, less of the idiotic bullshit spewing rager in league. Also side note good on you man, wish there were more people like you in league unfortunately I don't come across them too often

kasfasSep 30, 20171 votes

No problems with having fewer of these people. The fewer people rage the better. I know what it's like to rage, and I don't want others to do be stuck there. Granted I havent ever blamed my team openly, and very rarely ever complain in all chat to the enemy team.

The thing is if a person can't handle conflicting opinions or opposing point of view then they can just leave. The adults will stay and listen so they can humiliate the people who act like children.

marpatt11Sep 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No problems with having fewer of these people. The fewer people rage the better. I know what it's like to rage, and I don't want others to do be stuck there. Granted I havent ever blamed my team openly, and very rarely ever complain in all chat to the enemy team.

The thing is if a person can't handle conflicting opinions or opposing point of view then they can just leave. The adults will stay and listen so they can humiliate the people who act like children.

Still I feel like the people who have to listen to those ragers just to have them punished derserve respect. I used to be one of those people at the start of this year, got a chat restriction and tried not to rage too much since I love my account, love my skins and love this game, just sometimes those people can't control themselves. But you also have to think about what possibly is going on in their life, maybe their venting their built up anger, just via a screen.

SEKAISep 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

That's a pretty important saying.

Another saying I know well is "An opinion only has value if you give it so".

Basically what that person says only has an effect on you if you let it. Words aren't harmful, actions are. If your actions make those words harmful then it's not the fault of the words. No one is forcing you to listen. No one is forcing you to think. You choose to do those things on your own. And to even make the claim that words have a bigger impact than physical violence is rediculous.

That's NOT to say that this was a justified or necessary statement, but people really need to learn that taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners.

Quote saying means very little, because you can find a saying for almost every agenda. You can also just drag old saying that merely vaguely lies in the direction of your agenda into it, which is a common practice. That's the kind of exercise it is when we quote old sayings, it's fancy sure, but it's to be taken with a grain of salt. But I digress.

................

The stance that "no one is forcing you to listen" and "taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners" have an ultimate flaw, because it assumes that the person who verbally attacks with a malicious intent to begin with has no responsibility in their action, just because I guess words are supposedly not harmful (?). Supposedly, and that's another deal with this which I'll get to later. Here I'm not even talking about someone getting offended by everything that's said, but the fact one can clearly see the intent of what's spoken is malicious; in that context, which is what this thread is about, you are clearly wrong in that agenda you promote.

Harmful or not, a malicious action shouldn't have perpetrated in the first place, and should be addressed when it has been done to another. Period. The victim is not at fault or responsible of an assault, physical or not, just because they can't run away from the said action of malicious intent fast enough; it's absurd to claim so.

Getting back on the 'supposedly' point: It's also ludicrous to claim that 'non-physical' violence has no impact whatsoever.

What, so if I spray nasty logos all over your house and frequently come by your house to shout insults and shoot guns in the air, which nothing and no-one is physically harmed in the process, is entirely okay and totally not eating at the inhabitants of the house, and that the action perpetrator is not in any way at fault for doing such actions? Bullying, discrimination, everything along those lines, exist and are generally practiced in 'non-physical' fashion but nonetheless powerful as always for a reason. I mean sure, if you get shoot in the head that's gonna be more severe, ain't denying that, but words have no power? I sure as hell not don't buy it at all. That's ignoring and simplifying too many stuff that exist in the aspects of communication.

................

Sure, you can be the better guy and don't give 2 shit. Awesome. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so. HOWEVER, placing the responsibility ultimately on the victim to avoid the damage rather than the attacker to not intentionally spread the potential damage that's intended to do harm... isn't that the thing that's ridiculous here?

In this case, just because one can cover their ears doesn't mean it's okay to spew shit at others or have shit spewed at them, is the bottom line.

Either way, here in the last point we can get a bit moralistic: We're all civilised people, we're all gentlemen and ladies. I think it's not wrong to expect something slightly better and non-cutthroat.

kasfasSep 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Quote saying means very little, because you can find a saying for almost every agenda. You can also just drag old saying that merely vaguely lies in the direction of your agenda into it, which is a common practice. That's the kind of exercise it is when we quote old sayings, it's fancy sure, but it's to be taken with a grain of salt. But I digress.

You also need to take into account the quotes initial speaker and the context in which it was spoken. For the case of stick and stones, i do not know the origin but it is often quoted in the sense of words canot be equated to violence. The other saying is pretty straightforward. That is not to say that people dont misinterpret classical literature. I can give you the very recent example of Hillary Cinton's book where she misinterprets the entirety of George Orwell's 1984. Generally speaking literary content has one meaning and isn't used much in differring or contrasting ways, at least by those who understand the content.

The stance that "no one is forcing you to listen" and "taking offence to words isn't the speakers fault, it's the listeners" have an ultimate flaw, because it assumes that the person who verbally attacks with a malicious intent to begin with has no responsibility in their action, just because I guess words are supposedly not harmful (?). Supposedly, and that's another deal with this which I'll get to later. Here I'm not even talking about someone getting offended by everything that's said, but the fact one can clearly see the intent of what's spoken is malicious; in that context, which is what this thread is about, you are clearly wrong in that agenda you promote.

Since you like quotes: "Words mean nothin'. Flesh carries weight." By this I mean the words of a person don't amount to anything if their actions don't reflect upon those words. You as an individual have a responsibility to treat other people with some sort of dignity when in a situation with them, however the inent of a speech is only important if there is action behind it.

Harmful or not, a malicious action shouldn't have perpetrated in the first place, and should be addressed when it has been done to another. Period. The victim is not at fault or responsible of an assault, physical or not, just because they can't run away from the said action of malicious intent fast enough; it's absurd to claim so.

"[A] malicious action" is what defines the good from the bad. Without action we cant effectively judge people without accusing them of thought crime, which is one of the defining features of a dystopian society. Would you like to live in a world where you are taken to prison for disagreeing with someone? I think not.

Getting back on the 'supposedly' point: It's also ludicrous to claim that 'non-physical' violence has no impact whatsoever.

The impact that "non-physical violence", which in and of itself is an oxymoron concidering the definition of violence requires physical action, cannot be compared due to actual violence because actual violence causes damage that may not be repairable. Verbal actions can only cause harm if they lead to an action or event to cause it. It is ENTIRELY up to the "victim" to see that ahead of time and avoid it. When the action is specifically comitted by another person, the perpetraor of the action isnt any less at fault for their act, but in the case of self inflicted action there is no responsibility on the speaker when the "victim" has total control over their actions.

What, so if I spray nasty logos all over your house and frequently come by your house to shout insults and shoot guns in the air, which nothing and no-one is physically harmed in the process, is entirely okay and totally not eating at the inhabitants of the house, and that the action perpetrator is not in any way at fault for doing such actions? Bullying, discrimination, everything along those lines, exist and are generally practiced in 'non-physical' fashion but nonetheless powerful as always for a reason. I mean sure, if you get shoot in the head that's gonna be more severe, ain't denying that, but words have no power? I sure as hell not don't buy it at all. That's ignoring and simplifying too many stuff that exist in the aspects of communication.

Firstly, spraying my house is a physical action against me and my property which is and should be acted upon immediately. Next shouting insults, most probably unfounded but not necessarily so, at an individual who doesn't care about you should have no impact on your life. The only opinions that should matter are those of the people you care about. Having strong realtions with a stranger is rather odd. Furthermore, so long as you don't harm anyone while shooting the gun then there is no reason for you to not fire it.

The greater implication here is the annoyance caused by an individual, which cannot be properly quantified and if we allow any annoyance to be restricted, when can that restriction be applied to you?

In briging up the insult, i assume you mean in realtio to bullying and gossiping in middle to high-school aged individuals. In thise cases you need to realize that those people lack a fully developed prefronal cortex and lack the reaoning skills that an adult does. This is why we concider people under a certain age still held responsibe by their parents. They cannot understand the adult world. In catoring to these people you lower the standard of intellectual thought and run society into the ground. I say this knowing full well that I still am not a true adult, and do need more development time (the average age of final development being 21).

And no, every single reprehensible "word crime" you've listed have physical and observable impacts on society because they cumlinate into actions. You can be discriminatory in thought so long as you don't discriminate openly. The thought itself isnt what causes the problem, its the action caused by it which I can firmly say is not right and should be punishable by law.

Sure, you can be the better guy and don't give 2 shit. Awesome. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so. HOWEVER, placing the responsibility ultimately on the victim to avoid the damage rather than the attacker to not intentionally spread the potential damage that's intended to do harm... isn't that the thing that's ridiculous here?

Its not, in the case of physical and unprovoked violence, the responsibility of the "victim" to run away fast enough. In that case the perpitraor should be jailed for physical action agaist another individual for which they openly, knowingly, and clearly did not consent (the same can be applied, and is required, for when an individual gives consent in the case that you think I defend rapists). It is however the entire responsibility of an individual to either participate or not participate in discussions in which they have strong opinions about. If you don't want to talk to someone about a "sensitive" topic, say abortion, then when the topic arrives you cannot demand everyone else stop discussing it because you are oversensitive.

The thing that's rediculous here is expecting everyone to, at ever moment, not say something that may cause someone to do something that might hurt them. It is much more realistic to say that no matter what another individual says, it is up to you to choose what you do. Meaning that, in the case of words with malicious intent, it is much easier to have people say what they want and then every individual place value on other individuals satements as opposed to noone saying anything that another person may take the wrong wa y(which could literally apply to everything, another one of the signs of a dystopian society is the destruction of words).

In this case, just because one can cover their ears doesn't mean it's okay to spew shit at others or have shit spewed at them, is the bottom line.

You cannot conflate words with action. Words and ideas can and ave been very bad, but to just dismiss them because you dislike them is absurd. Words didn't cause millions of ukraninas to die in the soviet union. Words didn't cause the deaths of jews all over europe. Words didn't cause the genocide of many diferent ethnic and cultural groups throught history. Action did.

Either way, here in the last point we can get a bit moralistic: We're all civilised people, we're all gentlemen and ladies. I think it's not wrong to expect something slightly better and non-cutthroat.

We are not all civilised people. Some of us just dont want to be civilised, and want to see the world burn. Those people will often be the ones dragging our society downwards to its death. The civilised among us need to realize that we cannot let emotion dictate what can be discussed, even if those things are pointless and unfounded, because then we forget the point of debate: To find the truth.

EvilDustManSep 30, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You also need to take into account the quotes initial speaker and the context in which it was spoken. For the case of stick and stones, i do not know the origin but it is often quoted in the sense of words canot be equated to violence. The other saying is pretty straightforward. That is not to say that people dont misinterpret classical literature. I can give you the very recent example of Hillary Cinton's book where she misinterprets the entirety of George Orwell's 1984. Generally speaking literary content has one meaning and isn't used much in differring or contrasting ways, at least by those who understand the content.

Since you like quotes: "Words mean nothin'. Flesh carries weight." By this I mean the words of a person don't amount to anything if their actions don't reflect upon those words. You as an individual have a responsibility to treat other people with some sort of dignity when in a situation with them, however the inent of a speech is only important if there is action behind it.

"[A] malicious action" is what defines the good from the bad. Without action we cant effectively judge people without accusing them of thought crime, which is one of the defining features of a dystopian society. Would you like to live in a world where you are taken to prison for disagreeing with someone? I think not.

The impact that "non-physical violence", which in and of itself is an oxymoron concidering the definition of violence requires physical action, cannot be compared due to actual violence because actual violence causes damage that may not be repairable. Verbal actions can only cause harm if they lead to an action or event to cause it. It is ENTIRELY up to the "victim" to see that ahead of time and avoid it. When the action is specifically comitted by another person, the perpetraor of the action isnt any less at fault for their act, but in the case of self inflicted action there is no responsibility on the speaker when the "victim" has total control over their actions.

Firstly, spraying my house is a physical action against me and my property which is and should be acted upon immediately. Next shouting insults, most probably unfounded but not necessarily so, at an individual who doesn't care about you should have no impact on your life. The only opinions that should matter are those of the people you care about. Having strong realtions with a stranger is rather odd. Furthermore, so long as you don't harm anyone while shooting the gun then there is no reason for you to not fire it.

The greater implication here is the annoyance caused by an individual, which cannot be properly quantified and if we allow any annoyance to be restricted, when can that restriction be applied to you?

In briging up the insult, i assume you mean in realtio to bullying and gossiping in middle to high-school aged individuals. In thise cases you need to realize that those people lack a fully developed prefronal cortex and lack the reaoning skills that an adult does. This is why we concider people under a certain age still held responsibe by their parents. They cannot understand the adult world. In catoring to these people you lower the standard of intellectual thought and run society into the ground. I say this knowing full well that I still am not a true adult, and do need more development time (the average age of final development being 21).

And no, every single reprehensible "word crime" you've listed have physical and observable impacts on society because they cumlinate into actions. You can be discriminatory in thought so long as you don't discriminate openly. The thought itself isnt what causes the problem, its the action caused by it which I can firmly say is not right and should be punishable by law.

Its not, in the case of physical and unprovoked violence, the responsibility of the "victim" to run away fast enough. In that case the perpitraor should be jailed for physical action agaist another individual for which they openly, knowingly, and clearly did not consent (the same can be applied, and is required, for when an individual gives consent in the case that you think I defend rapists). It is however the entire responsibility of an individual to either participate or not participate in discussions in which they have strong opinions about. If you don't want to talk to someone about a "sensitive" topic, say abortion, then when the topic arrives you cannot demand everyone else stop discussing it because you are oversensitive.

The thing that's rediculous here is expecting everyone to, at ever moment, not say something that may cause someone to do something that might hurt them. It is much more realistic to say that no matter what another individual says, it is up to you to choose what you do. Meaning that, in the case of words with malicious intent, it is much easier to have people say what they want and then every individual place value on other individuals satements as opposed to noone saying anything that another person may take the wrong wa y(which could literally apply to everything, another one of the signs of a dystopian society is the destruction of words).

You cannot conflate words with action. Words and ideas can and ave been very bad, but to just dismiss them because you dislike them is absurd. Words didn't cause millions of ukraninas to die in the soviet union. Words didn't cause the deaths of jews all over europe. Words didn't cause the genocide of many diferent ethnic and cultural groups throught history. Action did.

We are not all civilised people. Some of us just dont want to be civilised, and want to see the world burn. Those people will often be the ones dragging our society downwards to its death. The civilised among us need to realize that we cannot let emotion dictate what can be discussed, even if those things are pointless and unfounded, because then we forget the point of debate: To find the truth.

I mean, you keep avoiding the issue of "people have the responsibility not to act like an asshole."

HellbornCreatorSep 29, 20172 votes

when people take a memer seriously LUL

Muffin MessiahSep 29, 20172 votes

{quoted}

when people take a memer seriously LUL

thats what constitutes being a meme to you? Cuz if so, I would like to see the source of said meme so I could enlighten myself.

HellbornCreatorSep 29, 20172 votes

It's obviously a meme. You just don't frequent the internet enough to know it is.

Muffin MessiahSep 29, 20172 votes

{quoted}

It's obviously a meme. You just don't frequent the internet enough to know it is.

Well considering I dont have a life, and spend practically every day on the internet. I would assume that I browse the interwebs plenty. I have just deducted at this point you are just a troll so.

HellbornCreatorSep 30, 20171 votes

Well you obviously only stick to one part of the internet. The only troll is the guy who said hitler was right. Sorry that you're a creature of habit and know almost nothing about the internet.