A bit of a moral dilemma -- what would you have done?

Aisle9

When did we go from
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me

to
Oh, noes, he said <insert word here>, members of <insert ethnic/religious/social group here> somewhere may be offended, I need to make sure everybody knows I'm not condoning such behavior


Grow up.

Yolokin_Swagonborn

Streega wrote: »

You don't have to engage in discussion and/or be toxic, just state calmly "I do not tolerate such behaviour" and leave. Maybe it won't change them, but you will allow yourself to be changed for worse if you stay.

I don't think bigotry is contagious. So in the end, all you manage to do is virtue signal.

ArchMikem

Report them if you knew which gamertag belonged to the person, cause saying that kind of crap is a TOS violation, you could possibly get them Comm Banned at least.

I myself would leave. Just sounded like a fail group. Half the players didn't bother going into Group Chat and there was a violently racist player? Just leave, they can find someone else.

CrazYDunm3r

How about we stop bashing OP and just ignore him? Because you all seem to be rather offended yourselves with his posts, whilst some here seem to claim to think words are just words and shouldn't be taken that seriously. It just seems a bit ironic.

Narvuntien

I'd understand if you left. If they make you uncomfortable then you don't have to play with them. Don't feel forced to play with people you don't like.

I'd probably continued, begrudgingly. Mostly because I had already put so much effort into doing a trail and I am not a minority. I'd still never play with those people again, accept no friend requests and note their name.

I think it would be a problem if you did it out of spite, rather than just being uncomfortable, if that makes sense. If you just flip from I am uncomfortable to I hate them and I hope they fail.

Aisle9

CrazYDunm3r wrote: »

How about we stop bashing OP and just ignore him? Because you all seem to be rather offended yourselves with his posts, whilst some here seem to claim to think words are just words and shouldn't be taken that seriously. It just seems a bit ironic.

You know...

























you have a point (._. )

Lysette

CrazYDunm3r wrote: »

How about we stop bashing OP and just ignore him? Because you all seem to be rather offended yourselves with his posts, whilst some here seem to claim to think words are just words and shouldn't be taken that seriously. It just seems a bit ironic.

Not if you consider, that even jurisdiction in different countries cannot get to an agreement how to handle this kind of thing. There is no global agreement - not even on state level, what is right or wrong here. Yeah, maybe it is ironic then, eventually. You see, I cannot even agree with myself if something like that offends me or not - I normally mute people like that.

randomkeyhits

Totally in favour of freedom of speech so long as said speaker takes responsibility for what they say.

As for some offensive comment I hear on the headset?

If it bothers me enough then I'll go, if not then I'll stay.

Whether or not I finish an instance doesn't come into it.

Anotherone773

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

monktoasty wrote: »

People have a right to say what they want and be bigots and hate who and what they want.

It's no one's job to police them or make them stop. It's just your job to ignore them.

Actually, freedom of speech in the US meaning is not a "right" anywhere else in the world - people are not meant to say what they want without to care for some decency. In most european countries you could eventually get a fine for doing so and eventually even have to compensate the hurt you have caused to the victim of your speech, if the offense was severe enough.

That is correct, and such countries are somewhat Orwellian. I am Canadian, my country too lacks freedom of speech. And I highly oppose this. I am against the idea that people have the legal right to be protected from "offensive"(whatever that is) speech.

The idea behind the US freedom of speech, is that when you are able to label some speech as offensive and thus illegal, you can start labeling all speech that you disagree with as offensive and thus illegal.

In regards to the OPs post:

I have bailed out of many group events over the years, because i dislike the way someone in the group is behaving. In one MMO ive played off and on over the last 10 years, ive had several combat leaders that i would not follow into battle because of the way they talked to people even though they never talked to me that way. I simply do not want to listen to a variety of stuff in games including: belittling, excessive cursing, excessive sexist or sexual remarks, racism, rants, verbal abuse, etc. And also real world politics and religion discussions. I dont care what your political or religious views are, so keep them out of my game.

If i have to experience these my enjoyment factor goes way down and i immediately lose interest in the activity. So in the case you presented, if it happened once, id give a pass even though i disapprove( i mean i disapprove of some of the things i say sometimes lol), but the more it happened the more i would reconsider being there. It all depends on the situation.

RobbieRocket

DoctorESO wrote: »

I joined a PUG trial advertised in zone chat. This trial requires 12 people to progress due to pad mechanics. There was a voice chat channel that about half of us joined. The trial leader and maybe two or three other group members were physically located in the same room, and those group members' chatter could be heard through the trial leader's voice chat name. Midway through the trial, one of those group members (not the leader) made a violent comment about a particular category of people. I will not repeat the comment, but just to be clear, it was a comment that would get someone fired at work, or a public figure to resign or lose their job, but not something that would get someone prosecuted. The comments continued, and the trial leader told them to stop. It did not stop, and the leader wound up muting their own mic.

So, would you continue with the trial or would you leave? One way, you may be somehow condoning the bigoted views, and the other way, you do a disservice to the rest of the team.

I chose to stay and complete the trial. I felt that this was the better choice so as not to harm the rest of the team. What would you have done?

Stay and make some educated but constructive comments so that the group could hear - hopefully with insight the person who made the comments would be reflective enough to at least change they way they communicate publicly. If possible I try to highlight ways to change that are easy and in self-interest rather than preach. Another tactic is to highlight how this person would feel... I mean it's kids stuff I suppose, in the end. With world leaders and greed drives that we have today I'm not surprised people can live in "self" bubbles.

If none of what I have said above appeals but you feel uncomfortable with the vibe, leave (but explain why, respectfully first).

Defilted

I chose to not be offended by what people say and move on. I would have stayed and would not have been concerned with the comment. I can only control what I do, not someone else.

Axoinus

Pointless to be an "activist" in that type of situation.

I see no moral dilemma to deal with. Except for the one owned by the person speaking and the person who made up this story.

FrancisCrawford

RobbieRocket wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

I joined a PUG trial advertised in zone chat. This trial requires 12 people to progress due to pad mechanics. There was a voice chat channel that about half of us joined. The trial leader and maybe two or three other group members were physically located in the same room, and those group members' chatter could be heard through the trial leader's voice chat name. Midway through the trial, one of those group members (not the leader) made a violent comment about a particular category of people. I will not repeat the comment, but just to be clear, it was a comment that would get someone fired at work, or a public figure to resign or lose their job, but not something that would get someone prosecuted. The comments continued, and the trial leader told them to stop. It did not stop, and the leader wound up muting their own mic.

So, would you continue with the trial or would you leave? One way, you may be somehow condoning the bigoted views, and the other way, you do a disservice to the rest of the team.

I chose to stay and complete the trial. I felt that this was the better choice so as not to harm the rest of the team. What would you have done?

Stay and make some educated but constructive comments so that the group could hear - hopefully with insight the person who made the comments would be reflective enough to at least change they way they communicate publicly. If possible I try to highlight ways to change that are easy and in self-interest rather than preach. Another tactic is to highlight how this person would feel... I mean it's kids stuff I suppose, in the end. With world leaders and greed drives that we have today I'm not surprised people can live in "self" bubbles.

If none of what I have said above appeals but you feel uncomfortable with the vibe, leave (but explain why, respectfully first).

Bingo. The whole thing is a false dilemma.

I hold to the maxim "The proper cure for bad speech is good speech". Usually, that's a fancy way of saying "Don't censor". But it also means that you should speak up rather than silently letting something pass.

Now, nobody has the time or energy to talk back to ALL the bigotry they run into across the internet. But the way this situation was described, speaking up seems to have made sense.

RABIDxWOLVERINE

I would stay and just ignore them. If it was hard to ignore them I would just permamute them and keep on keeping on

DoctorESO

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I appreciate hearing all of your points of view. One thing I would like to clarify is that this is not about being offended. That is a red herring, a strawman argument, whatever you want to call it. This is about condoning, or the appearance of condoning, bigoted behavior. Also, this is not about taking a moral high ground, as there is no clear answer and there is equal morality with both of the presented courses of action. And of course, this was a real situation that did in fact happen.

If you were with a group of people in public, and someone in the group made a violent remark about a particular category of people, I'm sure you would try to disassociate yourself from that person by not continuing the conversation and even walking away. If you struck up a conversation with a stranger in public and the stranger made such a comment, I'm sure you would do the same. You certainly wouldn't to be seen as condoning such behavior.

Now, if you were playing a pickup game of basketball, soccer, etc. at the local gym, that's a bit of a different story and more like the situation I experienced, especially if the equivalent of a team captain was the one making or further condoning the comment. You wouldn't want to be associated with the bad actor, but at the same time, you don't want to abandon your team, and of course you do want to play the game.

ZOS_MattL

Hey there,
We have decided to close this thread as it has become about politics. We do not allow discussions of this nature as stated in our Community Rules.
Regards,
Matt