Eso racism getting out of hand

SnubbS · March 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

He said he would like a anti censorship law to protect free speech after . No ones free speech rights are in danger because a video game censors and regulates behavior . I restated it and added that this does not endanger anyone's free speech . Privacy laws get endangered when they can no longer protect their asset because of outlandish free speech claims . Free speech is protected in public not in private domains . Freedom of the press and freedom of protests are all still available . You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

I was speaking about Free Speech as a concept, and not about the first amendment. It's blatantly obvious what I'm talking about because two sentences prior to saying that I expressed my knowledge that they were completely within their rights to do whatever they want with their platform. I haven't sat down and really given much thought to my 'Anti-censorship' law idea, it's simply that—an idea, a talking point. A law which censors the rights of companies to censor, it's a fun idea to me—probably one that could never be implemented.

You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

This is currently the state of things—there's little need for dialogue regarding the current state of things as if everyone weren't already aware of them. My personal belief is that you should have the same rights, you're free to disagree and debate with me on this—I hope you do more than simply tell me what the law is again, and misread my post.

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO · March 2017

andreasranasen wrote: »

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

An ignore button is not enough for me. I will go on a Making-Sure-You-Get-Banned-Purge.

See if you can spot the SJW in the room.

Then you need to read up what a SJW means

"A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of."

Good try to be "funny" tho

I know exactly what it means, and you fit the fanatical, virtue-signaling, holier-than-thou description perfectly.

Wasn't trying to be funny, but you know what is? Your failing ideology. It's crumbling in real time.

Good luck in the new world. You're going to need it.

FuriousStar · March 2017

****Does the profanity filter in the social settings work, what does it filter, and is anyone using it?****

Our worlds still turn, Earth and Tamriel, at the end of the day. There are racists. There are aggressors, but thankfully it's not the major way of thinking for most. At least not for most of us here, or else we wouldn't be here chatting about it.

What I do know for sure is that our world needs both sunshine and rain in order for things to grow. Plant life, people.. makes no difference regarding life and the elements. Without either, we probably would not exist. So take the sun and the rain, the good and the bad, and continue to learn and grow from it.

That's all I got.

Argawarga · March 2017

SnubbS wrote: »

I do believe in personal superiority—Albert Einstein is superior to an unknown Sentinelese islander. The rebuttal of my position on this will always fall back into ideology and never be pragmatic. I personally enjoy trashtalk, but I'm defending free speech as a whole—not simple trash talk.

I had to look this up, because I had no idea who the Sentinelese people were (or what they had to do with our conversation).

Now just to be clear, this is a thread about racism. Within this thread about racism, you have flatly said that you believe that this guy...

einstein11.jpg?fit=300%2C292&ssl=1

... is superior to any one of these people inherently:

Ahem... Care to contextualize your comment? Or are you just straying off topic here.. in this thread about racism?

SnubbS · March 2017

Argawarga wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

I do believe in personal superiority—Albert Einstein is superior to an unknown Sentinelese islander. The rebuttal of my position on this will always fall back into ideology and never be pragmatic. I personally enjoy trashtalk, but I'm defending free speech as a whole—not simple trash talk.

I had to look this up, because I had no idea who the Sentinelese people were (or what they had to do with our conversation).

Now just to be clear, this is a thread about racism. Within this thread about racism, you have flatly said that you believe that this guy...

... is superior to any one of these people inherently:

Ahem... Care to contextualize your comment? Or are you just straying off topic here.. in this thread about racism?

Yes, I believe in personal superiority. Everyone is not equal, though we should do our best to treat them as such. Your post paints me to be a tiny Adolf ***, and I kind of love it. It does look awfully bad in a thread with 'Racism' in the title—but my point is simply that someone like Einstein has contributed more to the world, is likely smarter than and in terms of usefulness to humanity is superior to an unnamed person from an uncontacted tribe. Now that I think about it however, this doesn't make perfect sense because members of the unnamed tribe didn't choose to be born there—a better analogy would've been Einstein to someone who decided that smoking meth was better than working, and ended up homeless because of it. Or more light-heartedly—Shaquille O'Neill to Kwame Brown.

I also had no idea that there were close-up photos of the North Sentinelese in existance—from everything I know about them, they're one of if not the most hostile uncontacted tribes on earth. Getting a photo of them from that close is pretty startling to me.

Edit: Adolf's surname is actually censored. So let me just try this: Josef Mengele.

seaef · March 2017

Argawarga wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

I do believe in personal superiority—Albert Einstein is superior to an unknown Sentinelese islander. The rebuttal of my position on this will always fall back into ideology and never be pragmatic. I personally enjoy trashtalk, but I'm defending free speech as a whole—not simple trash talk.

I had to look this up, because I had no idea who the Sentinelese people were (or what they had to do with our conversation).

Now just to be clear, this is a thread about racism. Within this thread about racism, you have flatly said that you believe that this guy...

... is superior to any one of these people inherently:

Ahem... Care to contextualize your comment? Or are you just straying off topic here.. in this thread about racism?

Um, I don't remember him saying that Einstein was superior because he was white. What I got out of his comment was he thinks educated/intelligent people are superior to a tribe of people who are untouched by modern society and therefore uneducated by his standards. Accuse him of elitism, not racism.

The fact that your reaction immediately landed on racism is the more disturbing part of the interchange between the two of you.

Argawarga · March 2017

SnubbS wrote: »

Everyone is not equal, though we should do our best to treat them as such. Your post paints me to be a tiny Adolf ***, and I kind of love it.
...
Edit: Adolf's surname is actually censored. So let me just try this: Josef Mengele.

I didn't paint you as anything, friend. I quoted you, found photos to reference what you were talking about, and asked you for clarification.

Now since you've shown that this has nothing at all to do with racism in the ESO community, can we just agree to drop this tangent and stay on topic? Please? Thx.

SnubbS · March 2017

Argawarga wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

Everyone is not equal, though we should do our best to treat them as such. Your post paints me to be a tiny Adolf ***, and I kind of love it.
...
Edit: Adolf's surname is actually censored. So let me just try this: Josef Mengele.

I didn't paint you as anything, friend. I quoted you, found photos to reference what you were talking about, and asked you for clarification.

Now since you've shown that this has nothing at all to do with racism in the ESO community, can we just agree to drop this tangent and stay on topic? Please? Thx.

I was on topic actually, my posts dealt with censorship and freedom of speech, with simple explanations in between. Unless you want to be pedantic and say that the 'Topic' is nothing more than what's written in the top field, and ignore the OP completely—I've been on topic.

Argawarga · March 2017

4

postlarval wrote: »

Um, I don't remember him saying that Einstein was superior because he was white.

Neither do I. SnubbS, brought up the subject of superiority in a thread about racism. That's why I felt it was important to give him the chance to explain himself.

Now that he has, please, let's return to the topic of racism in the ESO community. I think the question, specifically was: Has it gotten out of hand?

SnubbS · March 2017

Argawarga wrote: »

4

postlarval wrote: »

Um, I don't remember him saying that Einstein was superior because he was white.

Neither do I. SnubbS, brought up the subject of superiority in a thread about racism. That's why I felt it was important to give him the chance to explain himself.

Now that he has, please, let's return to the topic of racism in the ESO community. I think the question, specifically was: Has it gotten out of hand?

How pedantic can you get? That's the only question I think of after your reading each of your posts.

ONTOPICDOE: It hasn't from my experiences, I've never received any racist hate mail in game—and I rarely ever see any in zone chat. So from my personal experience, it hasn't.

We should just make this a 'Yes or No' poll, and close the thread when one of them reaches '100' votes.

Rohamad_Ali · March 2017

SnubbS wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

He said he would like a anti censorship law to protect free speech after . No ones free speech rights are in danger because a video game censors and regulates behavior . I restated it and added that this does not endanger anyone's free speech . Privacy laws get endangered when they can no longer protect their asset because of outlandish free speech claims . Free speech is protected in public not in private domains . Freedom of the press and freedom of protests are all still available . You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

I was speaking about Free Speech as a concept, and not about the first amendment. It's blatantly obvious what I'm talking about because two sentences prior to saying that I expressed my knowledge that they were completely within their rights to do whatever they want with their platform. I haven't sat down and really given much thought to my 'Anti-censorship' law idea, it's simply that—an idea, a talking point. A law which censors the rights of companies to censor, it's a fun idea to me—probably one that could never be implemented.

You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

This is currently the state of things—there's little need for dialogue regarding the current state of things as if everyone weren't already aware of them. My personal belief is that you should have the same rights, you're free to disagree and debate with me on this—I hope you do more than simply tell me what the law is again, and misread my post.

You're entitled to your opinion my friend . Opinions are subjective . Like who is superior . One man could teach the world that stars are made out of gas while another dedicates his life to teaching people carpentry . The students can judge who was more important by what each ones knowledge brought to them in life .

Argawarga · March 2017

SnubbS, I asked you to clarify exactly why you chose to expound your personal notions of superiority in a thread about racism. I asked you why, in a thread about racism, you chose to compare the accomplishments of a European physicist with the indigenous peoples of south Asia. Then, apropos of nothing, you started talking about Nazis. After all of this, I begged you to stop, and to stay on topic, but nope.

I think the mods can lock this thread now. We've answered the question. Eso racism is getting out of hand.

kewl · March 2017

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks,” John O’Donnell, a former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump saying to him in his 1991 book. In May 1997, Trump was asked about his comment during an interview with Playboy, and he confirmed that “the stuff” O’Donnell wrote about him were “probably true.”

Enslaved · March 2017

laziness is a trait

I'd take it over prosperous or training in no time.

Molydeus · March 2017

kewl wrote: »

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks,” John O’Donnell, a former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump saying to him in his 1991 book. In May 1997, Trump was asked about his comment during an interview with Playboy, and he confirmed that “the stuff” O’Donnell wrote about him were “probably true.”

Don't believe everything you read.

max_only · March 2017

Argawaga, stop playing fallacy football with the 45ers.

Cadbury · March 2017

Well......this has gotten awkward. And I don't see it recovering.

This is why hot-button issues like this are never brought up on a game forum.

Garwulf · March 2017

Actions speak louder than words.
Just because someone is saying the things you like to hear does not mean they are acting in your best interests.
Conversely just because someone is saying things you do not want to hear on the internet does not actually tell you anything about them. It tells you more about yourself.

notimetocare · March 2017

Hate speech, bullying, lol... What is this world coming to? I remember when bullying actually caused physical harm (like broken ribs, those were fun). Now people cant read words without day-long sessions of crying or demanding the world be made to be nice.

Not even ten years ago we were still taught how to handle stuff like this: Dont like what they said? Ignore it. Insulted? Insult back or ignore it. Now all we get is cry, cry ,cry.

Crying is the language of the weak who never learned to cope.

Turelus · March 2017

I wasn't going to post again but I had to for this...

Y'all really like Googling the definition of words and posting them to one another in debates.

Titansteele · March 2017

rentalman UK wrote: »

Xbox eu but probably across the board ps pc etc

I have been playing on PC since Beta and have NEVER come across this kind of behaviour. I am not questioning your experiences on Xbox but do NOT cast shadows on others based on nothing other than a fleeting thought.

Jeremy · March 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

There is no freedom of speech in a privately owned game . The owners make the rules . If you want freedom of speech , go outside . That's where it is free . No one is sacrificing any rights to play this game . You have a choice to play .

But Snubbs already said that in his post:

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

He said he would like a anti censorship law to protect free speech after . No ones free speech rights are in danger because a video game censors and regulates behavior . I restated it and added that this does not endanger anyone's free speech . Privacy laws get endangered when they can no longer protect their asset because of outlandish free speech claims . Free speech is protected in public not in private domains . Freedom of the press and freedom of protests are all still available . You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

He was contrasting how he would like it to be compared to how it is. He recognized that free speech was not protected in private domains. That was the point I was trying to make.

He also outlined what I thought were three very reasonable guidelines as to what he would consider appropriate limitations to free speech while in private domains. So I don't believe he was making an outlandish argument for unfettered free speech.

When speech is censored to such a finite degree that I can't even refer to a comment as ridiculous for example: it becomes stifling. I honestly have no idea what is allowed on this forum/game and what isn't - as almost anything can be deemed to be non-constructive by someone else. So basically anything we say or do is at the mercy to the whims and sensibilities of others. We really have no freedom of speech what-so-ever.

So I agree with Snubbz about this. We need more speech protections even while in private domains. Especially in a setting like this where we payed for a service that is open to the public. We should not have to walk on eggshells while playing a video game or participating in a forum and should be able to freely express ourselves without fear of being punished or banned. So I would certainly support new laws and regulations concerning the rules of private domains on the internet, both in video games and in chat rooms and other related enterprises of that sort. Because in my opinion they often go too far and cross reasonable boundaries.

Enslaved · March 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

There is no freedom of speech in a privately owned game . The owners make the rules . If you want freedom of speech , go outside . That's where it is free . No one is sacrificing any rights to play this game . You have a choice to play .

But Snubbs already said that in his post:

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

He said he would like a anti censorship law to protect free speech after . No ones free speech rights are in danger because a video game censors and regulates behavior . I restated it and added that this does not endanger anyone's free speech . Privacy laws get endangered when they can no longer protect their asset because of outlandish free speech claims . Free speech is protected in public not in private domains . Freedom of the press and freedom of protests are all still available . You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .

This logic is kinda wrong. That would mean that I would be able to have my own set of rules in my own home ( its private property, right?) that are just against the freedom of speech or even worse. For example, I could just say "This is muh home, muh rules, yo" and call ppl that are atm under my roof any names, as I please and so on. Like, any german I would call a racist ****, every black person a N word, every jewish person a filthy K word, every disabled person a F****** R word, and similar. And that would be completely OK, since I did that in my private domain, my own home? Of course not.

Titansteele · March 2017

Argawarga wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

I do believe in personal superiority—Albert Einstein is superior to an unknown Sentinelese islander. The rebuttal of my position on this will always fall back into ideology and never be pragmatic. I personally enjoy trashtalk, but I'm defending free speech as a whole—not simple trash talk.

I had to look this up, because I had no idea who the Sentinelese people were (or what they had to do with our conversation).

Now just to be clear, this is a thread about racism. Within this thread about racism, you have flatly said that you believe that this guy...

... is superior to any one of these people inherently:

Ahem... Care to contextualize your comment? Or are you just straying off topic here.. in this thread about racism?

I think a better way of putting it is some people are just ***.

Every race and creed has them, it is truly equal. What pisses me off is when any of the "ism`s" get tied to it and it is usually to suit someone`s agenda or a vain attempt to make a scenario fit an individual's belief or point of view.

Superiority does exist, I do not look down upon someone based upon their colour, job title or belief system but I do look down upon some people based upon their actions. I am not talking about silly things like the drunk person that threw up on the pavement last night, I am talking about the true dregs of our society such as paedophiles or cold blooded murderers.

Everyone is not equal, everyone has the right to be treated that way until they do something to lose that right.

ZOS_PeterT · March 2017

We have closed this thread as we feel the discussion has reached a point that it has bypassed the original objective.
This thread has declined into real world discussion instead of discussion of in-game comments and player ideologies.