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.

 StarTrotter wrote:
So I'm going to be stepping nout from this whole argument though. Before I go though, I'd just like to put my opinion.

SC pro player said something stupid, he got disqualified from the tournament for it. Alright, everything seems fine. If you want to be treated like something official, well there are consequences. Anybody harassed because of this needs to drop it. It happened because it should have, nothing more nothing less. The pro can play in other tournaments until then, he got a "smack" to put some senses into him.

Agreed.

 AdeptSister wrote:
And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.

Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.

Any time you have anonymity, you're going to get this sort of nonsense because a certain proportion of the population is composed of jerks. And it doesn't need to be all that big of a percentage of the population, either. A piece I read recently claimed that 1% of the population are sociopaths. And while I have no idea if the number is accurate or not, the person claiming that used it to point out that when you have a lot of people, you don't need a very large percentage of them to be screwed up in order to cause lots and lots of trouble. 1% is a tiny percentage, but it's a lot of people when you're talking about the population of the US.

That's what we're dealing with here. Lots and lots of people who have little interest in being empathic, and who are more than happy to use the internet to maintain their anonymity.

Eumerin wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.

Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.

Well it is a gameing forum. singleing out gameing is what we do here.

Lynata wrote:
tl;dr: Perhaps it is time we took steps to "dial back" this trash talk culture a bit and prevent it from either placing other human beings at psychological distress or downplay real life atrocities by comparing them to losing at some videogame.
That's just my opinion, mind you.

I for one would rather see witty or humourous trash talk than violent but that's just my preference. All competition inherently involves conflict- you're trying to beat someone else. Language evolves and as much as one may not like it, to rape, slaughter, murder, smash, destroy, decimate and other thoroughly medieval words have been appropriated to facilitate communication in these new fields of competition. It's not a question of 'should'- that time is long past. I completely agree it shouldn't be used but you can't remove the action from the context. In his world- right or wrong- to rape an opponent simply doesn't mean what it means when we talk about sexual assault. But in the same way that none of the other synonyms for solidly defeating your opponent mean to actually do what they mean (really, who destroys 1/10th of an opponent?) neither does rape. And calling someone out for *that* word while others that represent more serious offences go unremarked is special pleading.

Melissia wrote:"Going to rape some girl soon." is, literally, an admission of intent to rape someone. Someone saying that in most situations would be looked at as if they're insane or criminal.

Just to be clear here, you're saying that this guy had intent to and planned to sexually assault his opponent? That appear to be your claim. To me it looks like you're taking one interpretation- a very literal one- of what was said and disregarding the audience, context and most of all intent of the speaker. Unless you're Draxx the Destroyer, in which case I forgive you.

I'm saying he made a statement saying he had intent.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Actually, I think the problem is that there are three definitions of rape at work. The first one is about some bad guy coming to a woman stranger and using physical force to have sex with her without her consent. Straight-out comic book villain style. That form of rape is uniformly abhorred. Then, there is the definition that this is about anyone having sexual intercourse with someone else without explicit, willful consent. The lack of consent may be because of intoxication, or pressure that do not involve actual physical violence, or anything else, really. That one certainly is not uniformly abhorred. This is where you will find tons of people finding excuses for the rapist and/or blaming the victim. If not even celebrating the victim as a hero.
The last one means “to easily and completely defeat”.
Now, I personally think that if the second definition was uniformly abhorred, if rape victim did not have to deal with all the stigma attached to it, and if all those problems were solved, saying “I am going to rape you” would not be frowned upon any more than “I am going to murder you”. But it is clearly not the case yet.

The number of definitions doesn't really matter so long as one of them- the one invoked- isn't one of the terrible ones. I think this guys comment squarely falls into 'easily defeat' them territory and should be treated as such.

nomotog wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.

Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.

Well it is a gameing forum. singleing out gameing is what we do here.

Yep. Otherwise it would be off topic.

Like I said, I was surprised to see this in SC II e-sports.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm saying he made a statement saying he had intent.

Intent to do what though? To soundly beat his opponent or to violently sexually assault her without her consent?

He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.

That's not really a deniable thing. That's what he ACTUALLY said. Regardless of what he meant, that's what he said. And thankfully he has since retracted it and apologized for it.

Yeah, I was going to come in here and "feelings this" and "social justice that", but looking at the phrasing, I'd say the guy got off easy, and he's lucky he didn't get a criminal investigation.

If you're going to use the 'r' word, don't use it publicly, and don't leave it broad enough that people reading without context might actually think you're going to do it, ya jerk.

 Melissia wrote:
He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.

No, he made the statement he was going to rape her. Rape has- for better or worse- several different meanings.

Which meaning do you think he was using when he made that tweet?

 Kojiro wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.

No, he made the statement he was going to rape her. Rape has- for better or worse- several different meanings.

Which meaning do you think he was using when he made that tweet?

"I burned a [see forum posting rules] in my fireplace."

That word just means wood bound and intended for fuel. Why's it bad? I don't understand.

 Kojiro wrote:
The number of definitions doesn't really matter so long as one of them- the one invoked- isn't one of the terrible ones.

Oh, no, the problem is not the number of definition. It is the context. In French, «un nègre» (literally a [see forum posting rules]) is also an expression for someone who writes uncredited for the benefit of a famous writer. You might want to avoid using that expression most of the time though, because of the racist connotation, and doubly so if speaking about black people. Because you cannot ignore the other definitions of the word just because you are not using them.

And again, no one has stated that they think he was going to sexually assault her. No one had said that.

It just comes down that some people believe that using the term "rape" in the context of trash talk is acceptable and others believe that it is not acceptable.

I'm scared to post a poll...

On a more light-heated note, I went a bit on her blog, and I think most Starcraft II player that would ever want to physically attack her would end up easily overpowered .
http://esport.aftonbladet.se/team/maddelisk/workout-blog-week-introduction

 AdeptSister wrote:
This is PROFESIONAL Starcraft II gaming. He violated the rules of his work place and was punished.

Yup. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 AdeptSister wrote:
He also associated sexual assault with the tournament in that tweet.

Now you're just being dramatic.

 AdeptSister wrote:
It just comes down that some people believe that using the term "rape" in the context of trash talk is acceptable and others believe that it is not acceptable.

So, in other words, people regard different things as acceptable, and find different things offensive to one another?

Gee what a shock.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.

No, he made the statement he was going to rape her. Rape has- for better or worse- several different meanings.

Which meaning do you think he was using when he made that tweet?

Rape has a few different uses because words. The sticky point with gameing is that normally rape is a bad word. If you rape something, meteorically or not, then that is a very very bad thing. It's not a boast or something to be prod of. Gameing is about the only place I have seen raped used positively as something you want to do. It's a boast. When Mykhailo Gaida was saying I'm about to go rape a girl he was bragging and that is kind of the part that bugs me the most. Rape shouldn't be a positive thing in metaphor or in real life.

Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.

Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.

H.B.M.C, please read the original post and explain how I am being dramatic. Because it looks pretty clear cut in the tweet.

Saying "I am going to rape a girl #event" directly associates the rape with the #event. Please explain why you think they are not connected.

 Kojiro wrote:
Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.

Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.

People consider rape different then destroy/murder/kill mostly because destroying murdering and killing is often times played as a positive. If you do it right. You know killing for your country, destroying evil, murder... Well murder is mostly bad. We maybe shouldn't use murder in trash talk either. Though I don't even think we need trash talk in games. It's not very valuable and I think that is why we call it trash.

 AdeptSister wrote:
H.B.M.C, please read the original post and explain how I am being dramatic. Because it looks pretty clear cut in the tweet.

Saying "I am going to rape a girl #event" directly associates the rape with the #event. Please explain why you think they are not connected.

For the same reasons why when Mel said "He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl." she was being overly dramatic.

At no point was this person announcing to the world that they intended to actually rape the other party in question. Implying that he did is beyond stupid, and the same applies to any insinuation that he somehow associated the event with actual rape.

Literally read, he did post possible intent to commit rape.

That does however, ignore the context of the post he made.

The post he made is still completely unacceptable.

There are other attributable meanings to the word rape: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape but frankly, it's not a word that should've been used. It's a very charged word, as is obvious, especially when he says "some girl" right after.

We just repeated exactly what he posted. No one said that he actually planned to rape someone, just that he said he was going to rape someone.

Also, on the topic of associating the event with rape? I hadn't even heard of it till now. A stupid fething rape tweet is what brought this event to my attention.

To clarify: Kas tweeted " “Going to rape some girl soon. #fragbitemasters"

My statement is that I'm pretty sure that the Fragbite Masters Tournament organizers were not happy with having the phrase "Rape some girl" attached to their hashtag for their event. Plus I am also sure that it having the current blowback associated with their event stinks as well.

Whatever his intent, or what he wanted to convey, his Tweet was certainly ill-advised.

Melissia wrote:You made the assertion that the two are the same. You have yet to prove your assertion.

Prove it.

The situation is that there are two people playin against each other.

Person 1 says:

"I will own you"

or

"I will rape you"

What is the diffrence between first and second statement?
Both mean that person 1 think he is in a superior position and there nothing person 2 can do to win. They derive this from the real world meaning of the word (either sexual assault or ownership as in slavery)
Both statements are used in the same situation despite the real world meaning being different.
Both have same effects. The game gets played to its' conclusion. Somebody might be upset. In real world the first statement would be impossible because many countries forbid slavery completely and rape has lots of legal repercussions.
The only thing that is different how much statement are used. First is fairly common while the second one is not.

 illuknisaa wrote:

Melissia wrote:You made the assertion that the two are the same. You have yet to prove your assertion.

Prove it.

The situation is that there are two people playin against each other.

Person 1 says:

"I will own you"

or

"I will rape you"

What is the diffrence between first and second statement?
Both mean that person 1 think he is in a superior position and there nothing person 2 can do to win. They derive this from the real world meaning of the word (either sexual assault or ownership as in slavery)
Both statements are used in the same situation despite the real world meaning being different.
Both have same effects. The game gets played to its' conclusion. Somebody might be upset. In real world the first statement would be impossible because many countries forbid slavery completely and rape has lots of legal repercussions.
The only thing that is different how much statement are used. First is fairly common while the second one is not.

We are going to take notice that your not backing up your assertion, but your in fact making a different one here. Though comparing other taunts to rape doesn't seem to work in convincing me that rape is OK to use. It's making me think that we shouldn't use owned anymore either.

 Frankenberry wrote:
'Pro' gamers acting like assclowns, this isn't news, as fething idiotic as the whole thing is. Guys with this much public facing should know better.

Also, inb4 lock for bs arguments about feminism ensue.

*grumble*

Probably.

I've seen rape jokes in games all the time, by all the time I mean rarely.

People don't make them as often as people think.

Though I can see why people would be angry. As comedy is making light of the subject and trying to make it funny.

IT might be distasteful but it is within his rights, but it doesn't mean he can just say it all the time without consequence.

You failed to make your point. To use another example, Calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them an [N-Bomb]. No matter the intent.