ID:193200
 
OK. it seems things went way out of hand when I started saying fag. so let me please just put an end to it here. I AM SORRY. I still want to be able to post on this forum, I didn't know everybody would make a big deal out of it. I do not have anything against homosexuals, fag is just a word I have been saying since before I can remember. I really had no idea so many people were gonna take offense to me saying fag(note to self: never become politician). having said that can I please post here without hearing about this anymore???
Canar wrote:
OK. it seems things went way out of hand when I started saying fag. so let me please just put an end to it here. I AM SORRY. I still want to be able to post on this forum, I didn't know everybody would make a big deal out of it. I do not have anything against homosexuals, fag is just a word I have been saying since before I can remember. I really had no idea so many people were gonna take offense to me saying fag(note to self: never become politician). having said that can I please post here without hearing about this anymore???

Of course you may. We welcome enlightenment in any form it may take.

You'll find that a vocabulary adjustment can do wonders for the amount of respect you receive, political career notwithstanding. Its effects will reach far beyond the scope of this particular bulletin board.
It's good of you to realize this. Most people forget that the internet is a global, plublic place. What you might use as an off-handed comment in a casual conversation may be offensive to someone else. There's no way of knowing what words may spark another person's offence, so this will probably not be the last appology you write...

"Welcome to reality, my friend. It sucks. You'll love it!"
-Monica from "Friends"

~X
In response to Xooxer
I do find it interesting that people who tend to believe themselves to be beacons of free speech and civil rights tend to be the first to silence other people. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone while looking down upon them, and trying silencing them.

It is also interesting that those people are usually the first to judge and guess someones feelings and intentions. Whether it is meant to hurt someone or not It is almost automatically taken as a personal attack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning any such words or names, this is just a little asside. It's almost humorous how free speech is only important when the people who agree with you are using it.
In response to Skysaw
apology is the first step man, I get in the habit of saying things too, I don't think quickly!

CHONG RULES
In response to English
It's almost humorous how free speech is only important when the people who agree with you are using it.

That's true -- but it's not particularly applicable to the BYOND forums. In America, "free speech" is a Constitutional guarantee that applies to the government's relationship to the citizenry. It doesn't bind the owners of private property (except when the courts decree otherwise, which is kind of a crapshoot). If you're in my house and you say something I don't like, I can ask you to leave. In fact, if you say something I do like, I can ask you to leave.

Similarly, the BYOND forums are Dantom's property, and they have every right to determine how the resource will be used. Since BYOND is meant to appeal to as many people as possible, it makes sense to try to keep the forums friendly. When it comes to creating games, you can make 'em as rude as you want -- but on the forums, a certain level of decorum is expected. See the link below for more details.

http://www.byond.com/forum/forum.cgi?action=forum_help
Think of it this way: Wouldn't you be at least a little disturbed if someone said "Man, that's so hetero!" in a disgusted tone everytime they don't like something?
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Think of it this way: Wouldn't you be at least a little disturbed if someone said "Man, that's so hetero!" in a disgusted tone everytime they don't like something?

Though a little observational humour might not be the best thing to add to this post, people do say "Damn straight!". Probably doesn't apply, though. =)
Anybody who knows how to apologize can't be all bad. ;)

Z
In response to Gughunter
Yep, and they should be able to. I know if I make a game/forum I'd want to be able to make those kinds of decisions.
In response to Spuzzum
LOL.

Actually, I think it would be kind of funny if someone started saying "that's so hetero."
In response to English
English wrote:
I do find it interesting that people who tend to believe themselves to be beacons of free speech and civil rights tend to be the first to silence other people. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone while looking down upon them, and trying silencing them.

It is also interesting that those people are usually the first to judge and guess someones feelings and intentions. Whether it is meant to hurt someone or not It is almost automatically taken as a personal attack.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning any such words or names, this is just a little asside. It's almost humorous how free speech is only important when the people who agree with you are using it.

Then again I seriously doubt the founding fathers of the Americas went around saying fag or some of the other things with abuse the 1st Admendment for. Its meant to give a person to speak their mind, without the misuse of vocabulary.

LJR
In response to LordJR
Your right, they probably didn't and they shouldn't have if they did (although they were probably talking about bundles of sticks if they were...).

Freedom of speech wasn't meant to allow liberals to call people bigotted homophobes either (not saying that was said here). It was intended more for political dissent and to make sure the government doesn't silence it's critics.
In response to English
Let me clear up a little confusion here... freedom of speech most certainly does include the right to tell other people what they should or shouldn't say. Are you saying that liberals don't have the right to call bigots homophobes? Are you saying freedom of speech doesn't include the right to picket a network for giving air time to a person one doesn't like? Are you trying to tell me that I don't have the right to tell anyone, anywhere, to shut up or say something else, if I don't want to hear what they're saying?

Fact is, freedom of speech includes all of those things. Other fact is: the bigots still have the right to be bigotted, the network still has a right to air the show, and the people I don't want to listen to still have a right to say their piece.

Freedom of speech does not mean that once you've said something, no one can touch it. It means that anything you say or do is open to judgement and comment from anyone who cares to judge or comment upon it.

You can call me a name if you don't agree with what I do and I'll call you a name back because I don't agree with that. Does that make me hypocritical? If so, how?

(And before anyone brings up "hate speech" rules and laws... freedom of speech has never included so-called "fighting words", libel, or slander. Such laws, when written well, do nothing new except provide clear-cut examples of unprotected fighting words.)
In response to Lesbian Assassin
freedom of speech has never included so-called "fighting words", libel, or slander.

This is off-topic, but I can't help remembering one of my favorite Simpsons moments, set in a Country/Western bar:

Customer 1: Hey, you, let's fight!
Customer 2: Them's fightin' words.
In response to Gughunter
This is off-topic, but I can't help remembering one of my favorite Simpsons moments, set in a Country/Western bar:

Customer 1: Hey, you, let's fight!
Customer 2: Them's fightin' words.

Yep, I loved that one. I added that to my spam list a while ago. =)
In response to Lesbian Assassin
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
Let me clear up a little confusion here... freedom of speech most certainly does include the right to tell other people what they should or shouldn't say. Are you saying that liberals don't have the right to call bigots homophobes? Are you saying freedom of speech doesn't include the right to picket a network for giving air time to a person one doesn't like? Are you trying to tell me that I don't have the right to tell anyone, anywhere, to shut up or say something else, if I don't want to hear what they're saying?

Yes, freedom of speech certainly does include those rights and no, I'm not saying any of that.

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between can and should. Can people call other people fags? Yes they can, but no they should not. Can people call other people homophobic bigots? Yes they can, but no they should not.

What they SHOULD do is say why they disagree, how they feel on the issue and say what reasons they would have for calling someone an offensive name. Vague accusations and ambiguous terms are the cause of many disagreements and name calling solves nothing, it only inflames the other person.


Freedom of speech does not mean that once you've said something, no one can touch it. It means that anything you say or do is open to judgement and comment from anyone who cares to judge or comment upon it.

That's absolutely correct. However, there is a difference between judging someone and silencing someone. If you disagree with someone and you think their arguments and conclusions are false then by all means say so. If you do this then people will see whats wrong with their arguments and hopefully side with the more informed, better argued, and hopefully right side of an issue. If you just try to silence the opposition then you admit that there is a threat that what they are saying is true. If they are being foolish and inflamatory then I believe that most people will be able to see it (especially with the help of people arguing against that person) and that will do far more good than shutting that person up and letting their statements linger.

I personally don't see much difference between the government silencing someone and an interest group or individual silencing someone. Neither should be done. This is in general of course, there are bound to be exceptions for the public good. But then again, who gets to decide what is for the public good?


You can call me a name if you don't agree with what I do and I'll call you a name back because I don't agree with that. Does that make me hypocritical? If so, how?

It doesn't necessarily make you hypocritical, but it is likely to make you look petty and only alienate the person you disagree with. If you call someone an idiot they will almost NEVER see your point or listen to what you have to say, it's really self defeating. If you really want to have an honest and open discussion calling someone any name is a surefire way to prevent that from happening, whether the name is accurate or not.
In response to English
I personally don't see much difference between the government silencing someone and an interest group or individual silencing someone. Neither should be done. This is in general of course, there are bound to be exceptions for the public good. But then again, who gets to decide what is for the public good?

Ooh! Ooh! Can I do it?
In response to Gughunter
I am loving the simpsons quotes tonight!
In response to Leftley
Why yes, yes you can :)
Page: 1 2