posted
Well in Eve I got someone booted from our Corporation, lets just say he said something along the lines of Asians only being good at improving things not at coming up with original ideas so I reported him and he got booted, is that the right ting to do? Apparently when the CEO talked ot him he went beserk and wetn on a rant of some kind.
IP: Logged |
quote: Asians only being good at improving things not at coming up with original ideas
It's a common White-Supremacist assumption. There's a good chance he was a full-fledged racist. Some people say such things jokingly, but I don't think you'd report him if that was the case (and ok...in joking people often show their true colors).
Was he obnoxious about non-caucasian ethnic groups or Jewish people other times? Or only this once?
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
he was also going on about how the USA was the best country in the world possing super weapons no other country had could do whatever they want went to wa rin vietnam and killed "millions of the f'ers" to stop communism but when I point out they lost he said "no no we withdrew there's a difference".
went on about that the only reason why they were pushed back in the korean war was because they threw "100,000 unarmed men at them" :rollseyes: about building a great wall between mexico and usa. Very xenophobic stuff. Oh oh, and they can nuke anyone they want. Literally saying that it is a fact that the Unitied States are the bets country and people and thats why they "kick the Brittish asses" in the war of independance easily.
I pointed out they lost the battle of bunker hill and he said that they didnt. Oy.
Now as I remember all this I feel less bad about reporting him. And there were witnesses too as well.
IP: Logged |
quote: Asians only being good at improving things not at coming up with original ideas
It's a common White-Supremacist assumption. There's a good chance he was a full-fledged racist.
That's a common "person of oppressed race who is allowed by society to be racist" assumption, and thus, by your logic, you're probably a full fledged racist.
Wait. No. That doesn't make logical sense! He said X, therefore his idealogy is exactly X. You're missing something here, like a lifetime of supporting evidence.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't suppose you believe in "tolerance" at all, do you?
That's a strange accusation to make based on BB's post, mathematician. After all, it sounds like the guy booted was the one displaying intolerance. It's likely this was either a severe offence, one of several such offenses, or the guy was on thin ice for other reasons.
Personally, I'd probably have told the guy first that I thought he was out of line and that type of talk shouldn't have to be tolerated, then depending on his reaction I may have reported him, too. It's hard to judge, not having actually been there. BB was, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was on thin ice for other reasons, I understand. But the nature of the post implied this was a one time thing.
I just think this "tolerance" is hilarious. Tolerance is being tolerant of certain fews and intolerant of others.
It's ok to hate racists because of their views but it's not ok to have racist views.... something's VERY paradoxial about this.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard similar arguments, not based on hatred or anything, but on an observed phenomenon. How much basis is there in this idea anyway?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's ok to hate racists because of their views but it's not ok to have racist views.... something's VERY paradoxial about this.
Huh?
Sure it's OK to hate the things that tear a multicultural society apart. Having the views is a non-issue until they are expressed, then it's not OK. I don't see a paradox here.
A paradox would be if he were fired because he's white since all whites are racist. See the difference?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got the impression that the guy was fired not because of Blayne's reporting him, but because "Apparently when the CEO talked ot him he went beserk and wetn on a rant of some kind."
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
The nature of tolerance is to "accept all views". But here is an example of a view, mainly racism, which isn't accepted. That is, the "tolerant" are intolerant.
One may argue that it's "Ok to hate the things that tear a multicultural society apart"
But then, apply this same reasoning to, say, homosexuality. Like it or not, the majority of the votes of American people say they do NOT accept homosexuality as an alternite lifestyle. Indeed, many of them thing homosexuality "tears a multicutural society apart". There are many on the other side who thing that banning homosexual marriage "tears a multicultural society apart".
Who is right? How in the world do you decide that?
Until it's decided, why is it "tolerant" to hate homophobes but not be a homophobe?
That is the paradox. The view of "tolerance" has a selecte set of views that it tolerates. While many of these veiws are generally agreed upon as "beneficial to a multicultural society" (and are thus ok to be in this set), the rest show that the idealogy of tolerance is just that, an idealogy.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: I got the impression that the guy was fired not because of Blayne's reporting him, but because "Apparently when the CEO talked ot him he went beserk and wetn on a rant of some kind."
Just for clarity here, Blayne is talking about an on-line game. Nobody got fired from a job over this incident. They have a guild of some kind on the game, and the leader is called the CEO. The guy got kicked out of their group, and has to play the game by himself or find another group.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: I got the impression that the guy was fired not because of Blayne's reporting him, but because "Apparently when the CEO talked ot him he went beserk and wetn on a rant of some kind."
Just for clarity here, Blayne is talking about an on-line game. Nobody got fired from a job over this incident. They have a guild of some kind on the game, and the leader is called the CEO. The guy got kicked out of their group, and has to play the game by himself or find another group.
I feel like a total idiot. While I still think my principles apply in general, I don't mean to make such a stir out of something so little. (In otherwords, while I still think my views are best, I no longer they are apporpriately shared in this thread)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by Eduardo_Sauron: [QB]
quote: Asians only being good at improving things not at coming up with original ideas
It's a common White-Supremacist assumption. There's a good chance he was a full-fledged racist.
That's a common "person of oppressed race who is allowed by society to be racist" assumption, and thus, by your logic, you're probably a full fledged racist.
Wait. No. That doesn't make logical sense! He said X, therefore his idealogy is exactly X. You're missing something here, like a lifetime of supporting evidence.
See...I said "there is a good chance", and I did say that some people say such things jokingly. I don't know his life story. And I didn't say it was ok to boot him based solely on this only comment alone. Noticed the questions I asked? And...reading about the other comments he made, I'd say he's not a White Supremacist. Just a run-of-the-mill jerk. White-Supremacists usually don't brag about countries (as England X EUA - a conflict between caucasians).
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo_Sauron: See...I said "there is a good chance", and I did say that some people say such things jokingly. I don't know his life story. And I didn't say it was ok to boot him based solely on this only comment alone. Noticed the questions I asked? And...reading about the other comments he made, I'd say he's not a White Supremacist. Just a run-of-the-mill jerk. White-Supremacists usually don't brag about countries (as England X EUA - a conflict between caucasians).
I agree, I went way too far, and for that (and for my general causticness), I apologize. However, I don't think there is much to be gained from making comments like "this person probably is a racist".
Finally, I second your opinion about the run-of-the-mill jerk thing ;-)
*Edited for poor grammar/spelling and clarification*
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well those were some of his comments he was also constantly harrassing a Chinese player as in person from China in China playing Eve, talking about how the USA could nuke China wihtout losing a single civilian inreturn riiight.
Its not just he has certain views, that would've been irrelevent since I also agree anyone should belief what they can its your ability to act on them however thats different, he was harrrassing this Chinese friend of mine as well and kept dragging him into a rather one sided country bashing contest. That is when ild think you crossed the line.
IP: Logged |
posted
I usually just /ignore people like that...punks are everywhere in MMOs it seems, though I have heard Eve has (or at least had) a better community than some.
In any case, Eve Online most likely has an agreement that players click on every time they log in, and I would imagine that player conduct is included in agreement. If his comment was against the rules, you're totally within your rights to report him.
I do think that if you're going to play MMOs you do have to make choices at some point - are you going to police the community or are you going to play and have fun? I personally found a middle ground that involved a little bit of skin-thickening and surprisingly little /ignoring or /reporting. Then again, I played Everquest which was (imo) a very nice community - World of Warcraft was different, I think in two months I had five people on my ignore list as opposed to EQ where in five years I had two people on my ignore list.
As a complete aside...if you decide to ignore someone, don't try to get the last word in, just do it and be done with it.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The nature of tolerance is to "accept all views".
Uh, no. Only in some completely impractical "slave to literal narrow definitions" kind of way. No one who believes tolerance is a good thing believes it equals "accept all views". Every thinking person knows some views are just plain wrong.
I don't think it's "tolerant" to hate homophobes. The sentence doesn't make sense at all. It's not "tolerant" to hate serial rapists, either, but that doesn't mean it's not justified. There are undoubtedly limits to "tolerance" in every society. This one has designated race, sex, disabled status, sexual orientation, and perhaps some few other things as demanding tolerance. The paradox would be to demand tolerance of intolerance.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel like a total idiot. While I still think my principles apply in general, I don't mean to make such a stir out of something so little. (In otherwords, while I still think my views are best, I no longer they are apporpriately shared in this thread)
I certainly don't feel like an idiot. There is no reason anyone should have to put up with people who can't behave according to the social rules of a group in a social setting. It's really the same principle as if it were a job. If the person can't work nice, they get fired. If they can't play nice, they get booted.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's just it, this nation (assuming we're both refering to the US) HASN'T accepted, for example, sexual orientation as something demanding tolerance (just look at how the American people are voting on said issues), but the official view of tolerance has accepted it as something demanding tolerance.
And thus, the intolerance crowd demands temporary tolerance for its intolerant views of those people who are intolerant of homosexuality, and by your definition, this is paradoxial.
I would agree with you if it was true that "tolerance" today really captured the desires of the average American, so I guess our arguement is really boils down to whether or not it does.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel like a total idiot. While I still think my principles apply in general, I don't mean to make such a stir out of something so little. (In otherwords, while I still think my views are best, I no longer they are apporpriately shared in this thread)
I certainly don't feel like an idiot. There is no reason anyone should have to put up with people who can't behave according to the social rules of a group in a social setting. It's really the same principle as if it were a job. If the person can't work nice, they get fired. If they can't play nice, they get booted.
All I meant by this is that if the guy's family was gonna starve because of his comment, I think that's worth standing up and speaking out about, but if he just won't be able to level up his character, well, soapboxing from that kinda loses it's ability to be taken seriously ;-)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the job thing might be an interesting debate sometimes because I'm pretty sure you and I would disagree.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
