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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.