Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

these threads amuse me, as they pop up now and then. I think it takes a bit of courage to speak up for what genuinely offends you. I also think that nearly any regulation on expression is probably not worth the cost to expression.

The only thing I would caution people is that when you use language that people find offensive, people tend to block that language out, and by extension, your valid points. So, while I wouldn't advocate to ban certain language, I think that it should be kept in mind that other people can simply dislike how you communicate.

Just like guns are a right, but should be respected, free speech is a right that should be respected.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment here. I don't think that a strong argument can be made that the use of the word "rape" in the disputed context trivializes the concept. How long now has western society considered the victim in cases of rape to be the woman? From what I've read it was not too long ago if a woman was raped it was usually considered her fault. Hell their are still some god-forsaken places around the world which execute rape victims. Let's face it, even those who use the phrase "rape" in jest know how awful this is. I'd bet even the idiot teenagers who use the phrase aren't so dumb as to think rape is a trivial matter. Let's also face the fact that these teenagers are technically using the word correctly (even if they don't know it). Using the phrase "rape" to mean "dominate" is not a new use of the word. It has been used to refer to such matters for centuries. I don't think any harm is meant by it's use so I have trouble condemning those who use it. I fully understand why people don't like it's use, but I fail to see how it negatively impacts anyone. I see western society maturing in it's views of women's rights not regressing. The use of this offensive word has not trivialized the concept it represents.

What I do find interesting is that a better case can be made for the restriction (voluntary and in social situations where they would be impolite of course) of words like "rape" and "murder" then can be made for the words we are actually banned from using on this site. Curse words as a taboo are the remnants of an archaic form of racism. And most carry no worse meaning then their "polite" alternatives. Excrement is excrement and intercourse is intercourse so to speak. Excrement by another name is offensive seems ungrounded. Words are just collections of sounds. Which sounds are used does not seem to be a very good system for determining if a phrase is appropriate. However the concepts represented by rape and murder are viewed almost universally negative. As I've previously said, content vs context. But I feel this may blur the line between the two. At what point is the word choice content? When is the word context? Unless taken from a case-by-case basis this issue becomes virtually impossible to untangle.

And to play the devil's advocate once more: isn't the game we play technically a race war? Not to through the phrase around, but has anyone else felt uncomfortable when another player asked you "what race do you play?"

my two cents.

You have argued clearly and politely.

BloodofOrks wrote:I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment here. I don't think that a strong argument can be made that the use of the word "rape" in the disputed context trivializes the concept. How long now has western society considered the victim in cases of rape to be the woman? From what I've read it was not too long ago if a woman was raped it was usually considered her fault. Hell their are still some god-forsaken places around the world which execute rape victims. Let's face it, even those who use the phrase "rape" in jest know how awful this is. I'd bet even the idiot teenagers who use the phrase aren't so dumb as to think rape is a trivial matter.

People don't know anything until they are taught. Teenagers using the word rape in a trivial way may not -- probably don't -- understand its full panoply of associations. One way to teach them is to show them why it can be offensive and should not be used trivially.

Let's also face the fact that these teenagers are technically using the word correctly (even if they don't know it). Using the phrase "rape" to mean "dominate" is not a new use of the word. It has been used to refer to such matters for centuries. I don't think any harm is meant by it's use so I have trouble condemning those who use it. I fully understand why people don't like it's use, but I fail to see how it negatively impacts anyone. I see western society maturing in it's views of women's rights not regressing. The use of this offensive word has not trivialized the concept it represents.

Rape is a highly emotive word. The Rape of the Sabines. The Rape of Nanking. These involve not only conquest in war but also sexual violence against women. That is why the two meanings of the word are associated.

Some people are offended by the bantering around of such words. It can't be denied. It's no use telling them they should not be offended because of some reason or other. They are offended.

What I do find interesting is that a better case can be made for the restriction (voluntary and in social situations where they would be impolite of course) of words like "rape" and "murder" then can be made for the words we are actually banned from using on this site. Curse words as a taboo are the remnants of an archaic form of racism. And most carry no worse meaning then their "polite" alternatives. Excrement is excrement and intercourse is intercourse so to speak. Excrement by another name is offensive seems ungrounded. Words are just collections of sounds. Which sounds are used does not seem to be a very good system for determining if a phrase is appropriate. However the concepts represented by rape and murder are viewed almost universally negative. As I've previously said, content vs context. But I feel this may blur the line between the two. At what point is the word choice content? When is the word context? Unless taken from a case-by-case basis this issue becomes virtually impossible to untangle.

Again I disagree. Society has invented many words for functions such as excretion. Some are technical or medical -- excrement, stool. Some are infantile -- wee-wee, poo-poo. Some are slang -- slash, dump. Etc. etc. And some are swear words. These kinds of synonyms occur in many languages because humans are sensitive about the topics and need a variety of words to suit the situation.

Deliberately choosen, an out of place word can be used for dramatic or comic effect, or it can simply be rude. There is a place for rudery, but it is not everywhere.

If two different words or phrases exist, and one may cause offence, surely it is better to choose the other? That is simply manners.

And to play the devil's advocate once more: isn't the game we play technically a race war? Not to through the phrase around, but has anyone else felt uncomfortable when another player asked you "what race do you play?"

my two cents.

Technically it is not a race war. A race is a sub-division of a species based on minor physical differences which do not prevent interbreeding. The war between the Eldar and the Humans is an inter-species war. The war between the Eldar and the Dark Eldar is a war between factions.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Deadshane, would you go round to your grandmother's and tell her you're so hungry you want to rape one of her meatball sandwiches like a world-class whore?

Of course not (I hope.)

The point is that language, like any social behaviour, needs to be appropriate for the situation.

Just because it is a forum doesn't mean there are no social rules and conventions.

Please dont say grandmother, my grandmother died several years back and hearing that word seriously offends me.

Rape, abortion, and gay are not appropriate words to be moderated.

Obvious words are, you know, the words that we discipline our kids for using, the ones that shouldnt EVER be spoken by a young child.

S-word, the F-word, and the like. These are obvious words for a filter that dont need to be brought up on a family forum.

So MDG wants to impose his morals on everyone, his own form of internet "rape" so to speak. I personally dont see a problem with the usage of the words he mentioned. If they were used so out of context as to make the user seem ignorant and offensive(like in your example above), simply hit the back button and exit the thread if you're offended. These are actual words we're talking about, used in schools, churches, courtrooms, and family dinner tables without repercussions. Such is not the same with words like S***, F***, C***, and other colourful metaphors.

This is the difference, thats what a filter is for, and if you cannot handle seeing these words, words that are sometimes used to get a real point across in an intelligent conversation, then you honestly have no business in a public forum thats posted on by 100's of people.

Now, if Yak wants to adopt MDG's "Word-Nazi" stance and impose a ridiculous set of morals on everyone, thats his choice since this is his forum. I find it ridiculous however. Imposing ones own set of morals on others that do not agree is completely wrong and pretty much against all ideas of freedom of speach, but if you step into Yak's house, I can understand....to a point. I dont think anyone here wants 'Dakka' to become a board for grades Kindergarten through 3rd.

(NON argumentatively)

Do you realize he hypocrisy in your post, DS?
You start out by stating that censorship is wrong.
Then, you qualify it as being okay if it is words that YOU approve of having censored...
Then, you say we shouldn't be on a public forum if we can't handle certain words.

Dude, that is the epitome of Hypocrisy.

"You shouldn't censor ANY words... except these that I think are okay to censor."

Now, I agree with you on the words that should be censored.. but I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not saying MDG is wrong for thinking those others should be censored.
In fact, I agree with him. Not because of the WORD, though... but because of the context in which they're used and abused. I also agree with "gay" and "slowed" being on that list. I believe the way they're used is offensive to most "reasonably minded" individuals.

Please, note that I do not have a problem with any word mentioned in this thread, censored or not.
I cuss. I do it, however, in privacy, where it is not heard by inappropriate ears (IMO). My 10 year old daughter knows the meanings of gay, slowed and abortion (we haven't covered rape, yet... she needs another year or 2, IMO). She knows how they are "supposed" to be used and how they are "incorrectly" used. All of this, however, is done in private and not public.

It is the public nature of the forum that makes me inclined to agree with MDG.


Eric

Polonius wrote:these threads amuse me, as they pop up now and then. I think it takes a bit of courage to speak up for what genuinely offends you. I also think that nearly any regulation on expression is probably not worth the cost to expression.

The only thing I would caution people is that when you use language that people find offensive, people tend to block that language out, and by extension, your valid points. So, while I wouldn't advocate to ban certain language, I think that it should be kept in mind that other people can simply dislike how you communicate.

Just like guns are a right, but should be respected, free speech is a right that should be respected.

The principle of free speech doesn’t include being able to say anything you want in any forum. There is nothing in there about the moderation policy of a privately owned venue. You can be told to leave a restaurant for being loud and vulgar, and this is really no different.

And that’s assuming people want to go as far as moderation, which doesn’t seem to be the case for the most part. Most people are suggesting people should refrain from using certain terms, nothing more.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:these threads amuse me, as they pop up now and then. I think it takes a bit of courage to speak up for what genuinely offends you. I also think that nearly any regulation on expression is probably not worth the cost to expression.

The only thing I would caution people is that when you use language that people find offensive, people tend to block that language out, and by extension, your valid points. So, while I wouldn't advocate to ban certain language, I think that it should be kept in mind that other people can simply dislike how you communicate.

Just like guns are a right, but should be respected, free speech is a right that should be respected.

The principle of free speech doesn’t include being able to say anything you want in any forum. There is nothing in there about the moderation policy of a privately owned venue. You can be told to leave a restaurant for being loud and vulgar, and this is really no different.

And that’s assuming people want to go as far as moderation, which doesn’t seem to be the case for the most part. Most people are suggesting people should refrain from using certain terms, nothing more.

Oh, I understand that the legal principles of free speech don't apply to private properties such as Dakka. I should have been more careful and said the "ideal of free speech." I think that most private owners or their agents still make a decision between regulating speech and allowing the most possible expression.

I was saying that I agree with MDG that some speech is churlish and offends me (in the sense that I value proper communication and find sloppy language to be regretable), I think that simply banning words is a poor way to encourage civility in discourse.

Kilkrazy wrote:

What I do find interesting is that a better case can be made for the restriction (voluntary and in social situations where they would be impolite of course) of words like "rape" and "murder" then can be made for the words we are actually banned from using on this site. Curse words as a taboo are the remnants of an archaic form of racism. And most carry no worse meaning then their "polite" alternatives. Excrement is excrement and intercourse is intercourse so to speak. Excrement by another name is offensive seems ungrounded. Words are just collections of sounds. Which sounds are used does not seem to be a very good system for determining if a phrase is appropriate. However the concepts represented by rape and murder are viewed almost universally negative. As I've previously said, content vs context. But I feel this may blur the line between the two. At what point is the word choice content? When is the word context? Unless taken from a case-by-case basis this issue becomes virtually impossible to untangle.

Again I disagree. Society has invented many words for functions such as excretion. Some are technical or medical -- excrement, stool. Some are infantile -- wee-wee, poo-poo. Some are slang -- slash, dump. Etc. etc. And some are swear words. These kinds of synonyms occur in many languages because humans are sensitive about the topics and need a variety of words to suit the situation.

Deliberately choosen, an out of place word can be used for dramatic or comic effect, or it can simply be rude. There is a place for rudery, but it is not everywhere.

If two different words or phrases exist, and one may cause offence, surely it is better to choose the other? That is simply manners.

I agree it is a matter of manners. But excrement has to the best of my knowledge, never murdered anyone. Rape is a sensitive word because of the violent act the word represents. The core profane words (we know what they are) are simply cultural taboos nothing more. Since they all have substitutes which are literal equivalents in meaning, it is not the meaning of the word which offends, but the word itself. Avoiding a word for this reason is the same as avoiding walking under a ladder, or thinking breaking a mirror is seven years bad luck. It often has less to do with the possibility that someone be offended, and more to do with superstition. Yes these words are rude, but the taboo is the origin of the offense. It is simply an accepted form of superstition. Personally, I think this is the kind of thing our culture should be trying to outgrow. It's taboo for the sake of taboo. It's silly. Curse word enrich our language. You don't have to use them every day, but don't feel afraid to use them.
Of course if you use the same curse word 162 times in 22 minutes a dragon might devour you. You never know.

Polonius wrote:Oh, I understand that the legal principles of free speech don't apply to private properties such as Dakka. I should have been more careful and said the "ideal of free speech." I think that most private owners or their agents still make a decision between regulating speech and allowing the most possible expression.

I was saying that I agree with MDG that some speech is churlish and offends me (in the sense that I value proper communication and find sloppy language to be regretable), I think that simply banning words is a poor way to encourage civility in discourse.

Cool, I think we agree then. You can’t really legislate manners, the kind of person who desperately wants to say it like it is while find some other way to be casually offensive. It’s more about board culture, and people knowing what kinds of things are acceptable. You’d also have the problem of someone posting an article talking about high incidence of r*** among indigenous populations, which would be ridiculous.

That said, I don’t think it’s about sloppy language. It really is about the fact that rape is something that is real and impacts on a lot of people’s lives. Bringing it up in a conversation about which game unit is better is not cool.

sebster wrote:Bringing it up in a conversation about which game unit is better is not cool.

Until such time as GW runs out of ideas and introduces Arco-rapists.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one wants Dakka to be a kindergarten board, however the import of a word changes depending on the context and the way it is used.

Rape is the name of a crop widely grown in the UK to produce cooking oil. That does not justify using it off-handedly as shorthand for effectiveness at destructive power in a game, considering another of its meanings as a violent sexual crime.

I would say that murder is close to being as cruel if not a crueler crime than rape.

Am I to be moderated after I post how I "murdered" you in a game?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Although you do not find it offensive, there are other words you do find offensive, which you refer to in you post.

MDG finds my use of "Rape" distasteful, Joe Blow finds my use of "murder" distasteful, and Pamela Anderson finds my use of McNuggets distasteful. In my opinion, they are the ones with the issues that need to be addressed. They're the ones trying to impose their own morals on myself and others. These are words used in society every day in intelligent conversation.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It is surely better not to use these kind of words when there are other, inoffensive words available.

Thats just it, they arent offensive words, perhaps someone is 'offended' but the words themselves are not 'offensive' as typical "naughty words" are.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The idea that people should back out of threads that contain offensive words seems to restrict free speech and discussion even more than having limits on the use of offensive words.

Not when those peoples sense of morals is unrealisticly compared to an internet forum.

Actually, rather than objecting to the word(s) it's more the incorrect context in which they are used.

To use an example of your choosing, the word Holocaust. Although it is now forever attached to the atrocities committed against various peoples during the German Nazi Parties 'Final Solution' the word is, I believe, of Jewish origin. I don't think this word is especially offensive, unless they are followed with tripe like 'never happened' or 'was a myth created by Zionists'. Now that, I think everyone can agree would be highly offensive.

But to use words like Rape, or Abortion out of context is just idiotic. Instead of 'yeah! my guys are gonna rape your guys!' one could say, spank, mangle, mince, chin, knack, bray, slaughter, massacre, decimate*, destroy, annihilate and so on.

Likewise, for describing anything which fails to meet ones expectations, there are a wealth of words in the English language which can be used, including gems like travesty, embarassment or even plain old disappointing/disappointment.

But to use the words I mentioned in my original post is simply childish.

*Please note, the actual meaning of Decimate isn't actually all that apt. Decimation was a Roman punishment used on Legions, where 1 in 10 of the Soliders was executed. So far, the only source I have seen get this right was Doctor Who of all things, when the Master, in Series 3, orders the Troclafane to 'decimate the humans. Kill one in ten'.

I'm not saying they should be censored, as used in the correct terminology, they are verbs just doing their job. The act of enforced, non consensual intercoure is called rape. The act of terminating a pregnancy or project before it's expected end, is an abortion. But when used out of their context, as I said, they become pathetic attempts to sound like a big man.

Despite being fairly wordy (though nowhere near as wordy as say, Will Self) I am quite fond of rude terms and swearing, to the point where I own two editions of the Viz Profanisaurus, the Lexicon of Swearing. And yet, I am aware of a sort of pantheon of swearing. Some can be used to jibe friends or express mild disappointment, and to my mind, have largely lost all offense assosciated with them. For example, the word bugger. Not sure if I can get away with giving it's proper description or not, so instead I suggest consulting a dictionary. So, it's a proper verb, which has now become corrupted to be a derogatary address 'you mean bugger' to describe something gone wrong 'well, thats buggered it' or mild disappointment where simply saying 'bugger' is enough. So I would consider this word very low down the scale of swearing. Sure, someone is going to find it offensive if you talk to enough people, but by and large it's quite acceptable. And at the top? Well, those crafty Cockneys have a rhyming slang for it, which is the name of the awful singer of the awful song 'Your Beautiful'. Thats about as close as I think I can get without getting told off. Again, if your not sure, use the Interwebs to search for it. The word in question is somehow extremely offensive, and certainly one I reserve for extenuating circumstances, and is not a word I like to hear being spoken at all.

If we had to ban every word that offended someone, this would be a dull place indeed.

Hell*, there is a Psychic** power called Holocaust***.



* I find this word offensive, ban **** it.

** This term offends my Christian values.

*** This term offends the memory of the Jewish victims.

**** Ban is offensive as I know people who have been banned and it's hurtful.


Seriously, this is silly. No one should equate the denotation of rape and murder when someone says, "Your Genestealers totally raped/murdered my Space Marines!" or "I totally got murdered in my last game at the GT!"

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Why do people keep bringing up a 'ban' on words?
I don't recall anyone suggesting a ban on a word.
It's about being aware of how and what your saying affects the people around you.
Whether it's the way you meant it to, or not.

It really seems that most of the more callous/innocent "defenders" of insensitive verbage (eat THAT! living-language) seem to need to fall back on some defense line comprised of civil liberties under imagery attack.
My main argument is that a loud group of males shouting about 'raping' in a public environment (ie like a game store) can really wreck a girl's day.
It's not about offending someone's stuffy sensibilities.
It's about having an environment where someone can feel safe and just enjoy a good game.

So you are saying that A: A girl was in a games store, and B: She wouldn't be able to understand the difference between a gamer saying, "Dude, your guys totally raped my guys." and the physical act of forcing oneself on another for sexual pleasure or dominance?

Really?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

to Ozymandias
A: yes I'm saying that girls go to game stores
B: no, i'm not saying girls are stupid

How about this why don't you go into public and when someone gets owned in a game:
"Man, that squad just got lynched like n*s."
or
"Crap, you just stomped me like a queer."
It's about understanding the power of you own words in a public place with people of a varied background.

oh, wait. Do you call situations "gay" when they don't work out for you?
I just want to check. I may be wasting my time.

First, A was a bit of a joke.

Actually I abhor the word "gay" when used in place of stupid. But racial and homophobic epithets are a lot different than "murder" or "rape".

Hell, lots of people I know say things like, "Work was murder today!" Are you saying they are being insensitive in their choice of words? Maybe you are just being a little too sensitive. Should I not name my Space Marine chapter the Crusaders cause that might offend a Muslim gamer? Or how about the Black Templars? Again, that might be offensive to someone of Middle Eastern descent. Like I mentioned earlier, Holocaust is a psychic power in the game? Should I avoid calling it that cause someone might have had a relative who died in the Holocaust?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

There’s a difference between a word like murder and a word like rape. While in reality they’re both extremely horrible acts, things aren’t as simple as a direct comparison of the morality of an act. Note that a movie can include dozens of murders and still be a fairly light hearted romp, but one rape will change the tone of the film massively.

to Ozyamndias:
It has to do with the power-dynamic of the speakers.
The women that I have gamed with don't toss around "rape" as a amplifying descriptor.
Some of the male ones have use it as such.
If your the only girl in a group of strange (as in not familiar with) guys, it sets a bad atmosphere.

"Murder" does not happen on a regular basis among people that know each other, rape does.
Most people that have been raped have been raped by someone they've know for a while, probably someone they though was their friend.
remember we're talking about violence done to about 1 in 4 women, across class and race lines

most gaming communities are not friendly to women in general,
so casual use of a term that tends to be an ever-present specter in a lot of people's lives just makes it that much more difficult/unattractive to enter
If people want a gaming community that is open to female gamers they need to be mindful of what they say and how they behave
and not fall back on their unquestioned privilege as a way of doing things.

Let me bring this thread back to a point I think needs some further examining...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know I might be expecting a little much, but I always kind of hope for rational, intelligent discourse on a Forum.

Uh-oh

Whilst I agree that everyone has a moral duty to self moderate their choice of language in any given situation as best they can according to their sense of propriety, I think there is also an onus on the reader of posts made on a public forum to bear in mind that the person who wrote an "offensive" post or statement doesn't know them personally, and is unaware of the reader's personal background or history. One person's common parlance can cause another's utter revulsion, such is the way of language and one of the results borne out of a very multi-cultured and multi-national forum. There are people here from all walks of life, from all over the world, with every colour of skin, religious background and personal history. I'm sure I can type something seemingly innocuous that can cause offense to someone, somewhere who might read my post without even trying. It works both ways too, I'm sure someone who lives next door to me or on the next continent to me can also post something that I could read as offensive, without intending to.

You as readers of such a diversely subscribed forum need to realise that a post you read and find offensive, has, in all probability been made with good intent and is most certainly not aimed personally at you (unless it is, obviously) and was not meant to cause offense to anyone. You have a choice, just as you choose to read, ignore, comment upon, flame or not the posts of someone who's spelling, punctuation and grammar are not up to scratch for whatever reason, you make the same choices when you read something you don't like or agree with. You can either take offense, allow your blood to boil and either inwardly seethe, outwardly object either politely or loudly either at someone in your life or on the forum, or just decide that life is too short to waste pointing out to someone on another continent that the post they made to mean one thing could be inadvertently misconstrued by someone else.

Not wishing to promote further flame wars, but just out of interest, to the people who find "rape" and "murder" offensive when used casually in conversation... how do you get on playing a game where the fluff boldly proclaims things like "Suffer not the unclean to live" "Burn the heretic" "Die xenos scum!" and entirely encourages the wanton destruction and killing and maiming of fictional characters and creatures? Dark eldar are known for keeping for sex slaves. Space marines carry out ethnic cleansing. Orks kill anything that moves including each other for entertainment. Chaos space marines kill people in the most excruciating ways they can think of. Guardsmen swear, a lot. If you buy into the whole 40k universe, you're buying into all that stuff. Now, you might say "but that's fiction" well, it's just stuff written down by someone that you can choose to read or not and interpret how you wish right? Hmmm... sounds a bit like a forum.

Nuclear Mekanik:
how do you get on playing a game where the fluff boldly proclaims things like "Suffer not the unclean to live" "Burn the heretic" "Die xenos scum!"

That is part of the story and the setting of the game.

Saying that a poor die roll is "gay" is not part of the setting.
Neither is saying "I raped you like a b**c*!" to someone you defeated in a game.

You have a choice, if you don't like the way someone talks, either ignore them or don't put yourself within earshot.

Nuclear Mekanik:
You have a choice, if you don't like the way someone talks, either ignore them or don't put yourself within earshot.

This is true, it's one of the great ways to keep the gaming population to a small specific group of the population.
Also, with that attitude you have the added bonus of not having to take responsibility for what you say.

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:You have a choice, if you don't like the way someone talks, either ignore them or don't put yourself within earshot.

There's a third choice: call them on their ignorance.

Belphegor wrote:

Deadshane1:
Its much safer under your bed.

Choice of casual language in the gaming community is one of the number one factors that pushes women out of the hobby.
Rough 1 in 4 women have been raped by 21 in the U.S.A.
So having some privileged male throw 'rape' as an adjective for 'cool-power' really removes the fun out of the hobby.
Hate for women is pretty socially acceptable, and it shouldn't be.

Actually, it's 1 in 6. And it's in their lifetime, not by 21.

to PenguinDude:
Depends if your counting forced incest and rapes not reported to a legal body.
anyhow it's not like 1 in 6 is really any better...
but regardless thank you for the correction
if anyone is interested: http://www.rainn.org/

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:Not wishing to promote further flame wars, but just out of interest, to the people who find "rape" and "murder" offensive when used casually in conversation... how do you get on playing a game where the fluff boldly proclaims things like "Suffer not the unclean to live" "Burn the heretic" "Die xenos scum!" and entirely encourages the wanton destruction and killing and maiming of fictional characters and creatures? Dark eldar are known for keeping for sex slaves. Space marines carry out ethnic cleansing. Orks kill anything that moves including each other for entertainment. Chaos space marines kill people in the most excruciating ways they can think of. Guardsmen swear, a lot. If you buy into the whole 40k universe, you're buying into all that stuff. Now, you might say "but that's fiction" well, it's just stuff written down by someone that you can choose to read or not and interpret how you wish right? Hmmm... sounds a bit like a forum.

The heretics in question are fictional mutants living 40,000 years in the future. The potential victims of rape are our friends and family.

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:You have a choice, if you don't like the way someone talks, either ignore them or don't put yourself within earshot.

So if one guy out a gaming group likes talking like an offensive git, then everyone that might be bothered needs to remove themselves from that group? Not acceptable.

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:Whilst I agree that everyone has a moral duty to self moderate their choice of language in any given situation as best they can according to their sense of propriety, I think there is also an onus on the reader of posts made on a public forum to bear in mind that the person who wrote an "offensive" post or statement doesn't know them personally, and is unaware of the reader's personal background or history. One person's common parlance can cause another's utter revulsion, such is the way of language and one of the results borne out of a very multi-cultured and multi-national forum. There are people here from all walks of life, from all over the world, with every colour of skin, religious background and personal history. I'm sure I can type something seemingly innocuous that can cause offense to someone, somewhere who might read my post without even trying. It works both ways too, I'm sure someone who lives next door to me or on the next continent to me can also post something that I could read as offensive, without intending to.

You as readers of such a diversely subscribed forum need to realise that a post you read and find offensive, has, in all probability been made with good intent and is most certainly not aimed personally at you (unless it is, obviously) and was not meant to cause offense to anyone. You have a choice, just as you choose to read, ignore, comment upon, flame or not the posts of someone who's spelling, punctuation and grammar are not up to scratch for whatever reason, you make the same choices when you read something you don't like or agree with. You can either take offense, allow your blood to boil and either inwardly seethe, outwardly object either politely or loudly either at someone in your life or on the forum, or just decide that life is too short to waste pointing out to someone on another continent that the post they made to mean one thing could be inadvertently misconstrued by someone else.

Not wishing to promote further flame wars, but just out of interest, to the people who find "rape" and "murder" offensive when used casually in conversation... how do you get on playing a game where the fluff boldly proclaims things like "Suffer not the unclean to live" "Burn the heretic" "Die xenos scum!" and entirely encourages the wanton destruction and killing and maiming of fictional characters and creatures? Dark eldar are known for keeping for sex slaves. Space marines carry out ethnic cleansing. Orks kill anything that moves including each other for entertainment. Chaos space marines kill people in the most excruciating ways they can think of. Guardsmen swear, a lot. If you buy into the whole 40k universe, you're buying into all that stuff. Now, you might say "but that's fiction" well, it's just stuff written down by someone that you can choose to read or not and interpret how you wish right? Hmmm... sounds a bit like a forum.

Some of us don't buy into the whole 40K universe. We play the game because the game is fun, and we laugh behind our hands at the ridiculous pomposity of the early-teen boy fantasy imagery of the fluff.

Rape is never cool unless it's Bro-rape.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:Rape is never cool unless it's Bro-rape.

..and I turned around and saw a Jack Johnson CD sitting next to my beer. And I was all like "Hey who's Jack Johnson CD is this, I love Jack Johnson!" and he said "Yeah me too dude, I love Jack Johnson too, wanna go up to my room and talk about it?"

We can paly some xbox.