A Unity ID allows you to buy and/or subscribe to Unity products and services, shop in the Asset Store and participate
in the Unity community.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by alexanderameye, Aug 5, 2017.
No need to be condescending. That is a really bad analogy.
ohhh, aren't you just *clever*, what a SMART post
Well at least it make a clear example that its the intention and not the word thats hurtful. Remove the word retard from human vocabulary and another word thats not hurtful will become hurtful to take its place. People like to hurt other people because it makes them feel better about their own inadequacy. Its not the word its the intended meaning and though over the top he made a good point.
But this is not to say words can't hurt. Rather words can hurt because of the intention behind it, not because of the word itself. You can replace the word, or even use no word, and still be hostile.
Generally words like "retard" are used to be disrespectful and ill intended. But also can be used as a form of trust, when being bluntly honest to make a point. Or humorous, without ill intentions.
What's more important in life, the meaning of things? Or the interpretation? I'd personally rather seek the meaning, even if it means bypassing some word I didn't like, than focusing on my (initial) interpretation, which can be wrong.
Agreed. Not teally a word hurting you but the poor guy using it. I say poor because people who habitually hurt other people's feelings usually do it because they feel bad themselves. Any word or no words at all can be severely offensive. Most words that are offensive can be used in a good way.
Take a step back because you're kind of proving the point. It's only bad if you project and treat it literally.
Keep in mind that that example is also far from hyperbole. People are in a horrified tizzy over the master/slave terminology using in computing. Every few months there's some classic term that has to be replaced with newspeak because of current connotations. There's always some new word that has to be shortened to its first letter, because it's so terrible. People don't realize it's the context that creates meaning, not the word itself.
NEWSPEAK is really the only word for it, every day we see another page of 1984 turn.
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
This is not the first time I have seen the word projection used when someone wants to disagree with another person.
I am not defending myself at all. I have no reason to do so.
I am careful about the words I use, especially words that have a negative history in our culture. I do not call you guys names, or swear at you, or in any way defend my use of certain words.
I am not projecting. In fact, you guys are defending yourself and accusing me of doing the same thing you do. Meaning, you guys are the one projecting. LOL You are attributing projection to me, when I am not attributing anything to you, other than suggesting that some words might not be good to use in all applications.
Can't argue this. If you apply a word, any word, as a derogatory description of another person its not good. In converse all but a few of these words can be applied in a non derogatory fashion and would only offend someone if they misunderstood the meaning or like to be the offended martyr in the room.
The line that created this discussion was "are you a retard".
So...what if we used other derogatory words in titles? Such as a game where you play a woman and the title is "Are you a B*****. Or a title about a pacifist called Are you a Sissie. Or a title about sexuality and the name is Are you a Fag.
Where is the line drawn?
So is a gay person offended by a game title called "Are you a Fag" a martyr? Or are they simply offended that a derogatory term that has been used to define them by people who hate them for who they are is being used for a game title.
Just because someone takes offense does not mean that the game can't have that title or that it should change. But it also means that the person who is offended is wrong or an idiot, or a martyr. It could also be that they are offended simply because it is not something that is necessary.
As for the word retard meaning other things? Yes, of course it does. But it is obvious from the title/line that they used this word to mean mentally disabled. The meaning in this case was certainly not misunderstood.
But that question goes both ways.
Because taking out swear words comes naturally to polite people. But some people express themselves differently, and no one wants to be stripped from their vocabulary.
What if the words you had to stop using were words you use more commonly?
Say RockoDyne were to be offended by the stingy usage of the word 'Ironic', in his eyes it may be just like any other insult, same effect. Is the point to offend and get away with it? That kind of betrays the whole purpose of removing words, I think.
You have the right to use the word 'ironic', heck, you have the right to be a little offensive to make a point, sometimes. And RockyDyne should really grow a thicker skin, I mean geese dude, why are you so touchy? STAPH
We are in agreement here. No the gay person would have a right to be offended because the word was obviously used in an offensive manner. I was just making the point that some people do take offense when none is intended. It seems we have similar views although I think I'm a bit less easily offended. But its your right to be upset when someone says retarded in a derogatory fashion. I dont think referring to something as retarded always carries the derogatory meaning and can just be descriptive of its condition. For instance my cat fell off the roof as a kitten landed head first and has been developmentally retarded since. I wasnt intending to hurt my cats feelings, I love my retarded cat. I wasn't intending to hurt your feelings, why would I. I just used the word retarded because it was the most accurate description.
Dear god, the irony.
Sympathy being a synonym for pity.
Ya know what, I never saw the thread that spawned this... discussion. I read a few posts and I'm already exasperated, and more irate than before. I am staying as far away from this as I can.
I had noped out long before that considering that's totally not the kind of projection I was using. I found irony one way or another.
If I recall it correctly, you dealt with a kid that required extra work. So when you encounter a situation or title like the one in opening post, you think about that kid, and get angry. And that is projecting.
Half of the humanity do the same thing, though.
I think carelessly throwing word "Rights" around is a bad idea. Rights are a legal construct and are codified somewhere. Number of people who misunderstand their own rights (such as "Free Speech") is very high.
I think it would be a good idea to question if you even have the right to be offended. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that people don't have such right.
I was not intending to imply legal right although how can you put restrictions on emotions. Maybe I did use that word carelessly, maybe it does imply legality.
Let me rephrase. As a person with a large capacity for intellectual empathy I can understand why the homo might get his feelings hurt.
Now let me follow that with. As a person with very little capacity for emotional empathy I really dont care that his feelings got hurt unless he or she is one of my friends. Since my only 2 gay friends really dont care if I say fag or not I rarely try to find a nicer word.
Braineeee, interesting username. Is that how you see yourself?
Yeah, but people find way too many things to freak out about, and some of them even seem to be taking pride in getting offended.
That's why I think that while taking basic measures against pissing off your users is good enough, going out of your way to please everybody is not a good idea.
So if they are not your friends, who cares. I get it. lol
But who would know that? Your words meant something different I guess than what you said because I interpreted that you were accusing me of projecting in the psychological terminology.
Regardless, I understand. No hard feelings. I enjoy your posts.
The word retarded is no longer used to describe the condition because of the negative derogatory meaning that was attached. In fact, it was changed many many years ago. So to disabled people and loved ones of disabled people, it is a bitter pill.
I am sure your cat does not mind. We have a cat who is a bit spacey but we just call her blonde. I do not think blonde as of yet has derogatory meanings attached although maybe it does. I happen to be blonde, at least under the red hair dye. But...I do not mind being called blonde.
For all of you who still think that this about political correctness or about someone telling you what to do ....it is not...
This is about respect.
So use the words you wish, but remember, people who hear those words may lose respect for you if you cannot think before you speak, think about what you say, what words you use and how you and your words are perceived.
You may not care now, but remember, everything you say here is seen by others. Everything you speak in public says something about you.
One never knows when they make a contact, here or elsewhere who might help them in the future.
What if one of them minded, what would you do then? What if someone else minds?
Person A: "It's just a word"
Person B: "It's not to me"
Now A needs to make a choice.
He can show a little empathy and respect person B, even if he doesn't get why.
(I mean, I am not from the US, I for example don't *get* the big deal about the N word)
Or he can go on rants about society and humanity and overuse the "forbidden" words like almost out of spite.
Sad thing is that many people do care about are afraid to say they are offended, for the very reason that they would be laughed at by some. To me, that is sad.
The days when we (as in anyone who feels they have to hide how they feel to fit in) had to keep quiet are over. Sadly, there are those who cannot defend themselves.
I think it's a bit cringeworthy saying "Oh I have actual real... existing gay friends!" or "I can talk about this because one of my friend's family is BLACK!"... I mean really, can't points exist without segregation? I'm not upset - I just think arguments should stand squarely on their own feet
As your official gay friend I suggest you very slowly back away from the "I have gay friends" argument.
Most people feel empathy and are not this way. I understand empathy yet do not feel it. Personal fault i guess
People only deserve common courtesy by default and not respect, which needs to be earned.
"Respect" is pretty much admiration, and this one shouldn't be given easily.
"Common courtesy" is maintaining mask of politeness, "I don't know what kind of person you are, but I won't get into your way and won't try to hurt you" kind of thing. This is a default polite behavior.
In situation when people start talk about "rights" and "being offended" and start demanding special treatment, that... doesn't really build any foundation for possibly respecting them in the future.
So, in situation when A uses a word that "offends" B without intent to hurt B, and B makes a scene out of it (failing to realize that A lack's B's frame of reference that makes the word offensive), A (according to common courtesy) would produce canned insincere apology just to make the B shut up about it, and will perceive B in more negative light than before.
The important thing is intent. If a party is using some word with intent to hurt, that's grounds for retaliation. However, if it is not used with intent to hurt, then being proudly offended about it is not the right course of action.
I think you misunderstood. I wasnt sayin I have gay friends so its ok. I was saying my gay friends dont care so I dont either. If I had friends gay or otherwise that found it offensive I would avoid its use if I wanted them to remain friends.
Well in my world view there is no gay or whatever, just another person in front of me with feelings, it's just sad that it's necessary to have this little box with gay written on it, but I understand most of the world isn't ready for true acceptance yet.
What's the problem? The exact same thing applies. They're free to call their game that and you're free to not invest in their product.
One may think differently to another and they can each deal with this as individuals who can pass their own judgement on whether it oversteps their particular line.
You keep saying martyr and I'm not sure why; nobody's dying for a cause here- it's a silly game title. Again, they may be offended, and can voice their complaints, and the creator can also not care and carry on if they so choose to.
I think the main thing here I see is whether it's worth getting offended over something so insignificant. The title is crude and childish. But it doesn't deeply, mortally offend me. And I'm not going to ask them to change it; but I would certainly advise caution in using it.
If a friend minded I would avoid it if I wanted te retain their friendship and somewhat care how they feel. If it was a stranger I would need to decide which benefits me the most because I really dont care how they feel. If it helps me to make you feel good I will. If it helps me to make you cry get the tissues sissy.
Did you read the post I quoted? LOL I was called a martyr. I agree, no one is a martyr.
Nobody asked him to change it.
And very good that it does not offend you. Glad to hear that.
I don't think we can ever be friends though, regardless of whether you think it helps you or not.
Um, yeah. Exactly what I said far up in the thread.
Im sorry you read it that way. I did not intend to say you were acting like a martyr and was overall agreeing with you. I was saying some people go too far, not you in particular. What you say seems to be fairly well though out and defensible not over the top offended just for the sake of being offended. There are people though who live to be the one who is offended, oppressed, held down and so on. I refer to them that way.
Likely not. Though in the open world I doubt you ever catch on to the way I work. People generally find me charming and fun to be around. Its a condition man, I was born this way. Only my wife mother and daughter know how I really work and they dont fully get it. My daughter does because she suffers the same. I'm not in the habit of being so open about my lack of emotional connection but this is the internet and I have a level of anonymity that allows for more honesty.
So what's the problem? It does not offend me, or a good many people. And the same can be said for the other side. It is not up to us to dictate what can and can't be said. We respond as individuals to these things and then the creator can make a choice. There's really nothing to it than that.
We shouldn't ban words, we shouldn't police creators and we certainly needn't get agitated over a title.
Nobody, certainly not I, said that anything should be banned. Amazing that we talk about words while people read between the lines. lol
I even several times said that the title should not be banned or forbidden. Like I could do that anyway. lol
On a side note, the discussion has reminded me of a similar trend in my country which I believe to be somewhat relevant to the issue.
There's a certain website in my country that is notorious for its unethical contents. At first, people criticized how members of the community promote hatred against various minority groups like women or foreigners. And it was a just criticism because they, in fact, condoned such kind of hate speeches on their website.
And as the notoriety of the website grows, people began to be overly sensitive to anything related to that community. For example, if someone is found to be a member of that community, one would likely to be shunned by former friends and even possibly be expelled from a job.
By the way, members of the community have used many terms in a different meaning among themselves, often with an intention to ridicule various minority groups. As such, now everybody is trying to catch others of using one of such 'bad words', so that they can reveal their identity as a member of such a abominable community and condemn them.
There's even an online dictionary that presumably compiling such words frequently used as derogatory terms within that community to warn people of using them inadvertently. Now, quite large vocabulary of words which didn't have any negative connotations before became condemned that way, and the number is growing even now, as members of the community constantly find new ways of insulting minority groups with apparently innocent words.
A funny thing I noticed is that, many of those who vehemently attacking that community these days often turn out to be a misogynie, homophobic or xenophobic themselves. The reason is that people came to identify everything unethical with that community, so they stopped asking what kinds of things are morally wrong to say and why.
So now the whole matter has degenerated into a nation-wide Witch Hunt to find out who's associated with that website by examining what kinds of words they use.
It's far easier to just say this or that word is bad than to actually examine the intentions and contexts. Most of the more 'polite' homophobic people are well aware that the word 'Fag' has a strong derogatory connotation against homosexuals, so they probably wouldn't use it in public. But the fact doesn't stop them from being a homophobic and there are thousands other ways to make a hate speech against homosexuals without uttering any of such derogatory slurs.
Hate speeches and the general lack of sympathy for minority groups are some of the most pressing issues in our times. But I believe compiling a blacklist of words that can be used in a derogatory sense against them won't really help solving the problem.
It only serves to lay a minefield which make our a public conversation difficult by limiting our vocabulary and forcing us to keep replacing one euphemism with another, while disrespectful people keep finding new ways to insult such minority groups.
I'd say you're right, there's a distinction between common courtesy, and admiration ... but it's more like different degrees of respect.
Respect is more related to fear. Just that with admiration, it's the fear of losing the perceived benefit that person brings to you, directly or indirectly, you see something useful in that person, and as a gregarious animal, you're rigged to keep that usefulness around you, as means to survive.
The wiring goes so deep, we just follow our feelings, we don't even think about it. But the mechanism has its own logic.
Deep down, the perceived benefit we fear losing ... is mercy. As we have embedded in our biology that nature can be a very cruel thing. Animals have it too, in their own way, with humans it just takes a more "formal" shape, the common courtesy.
Not really a sign of weakness, but diplomacy, a reciproque agreement, because we need each other, we need our respect. The problem is ... when some people can't be admired to get respect, they could instead seek to be feared, respect is respect, so show some claws ... or fangs, whatever you've got ... because either way, people desperately want respect, as subconsciously getting no respect is being left behind by the pack, and we're not meant to be lonely animals.
I don't agree with those ideas.
The primary meaning of "respect" for me is admiration/admiring and (and as much as I dislike dictionary arguments), dictionary definitions seem to agree with that. Because of this I see asking someone to "respect" someone they just met as an unreasonable demand, and what people actually mean most of the time is being polite/civil. Which does not mean any respect, only common courtesy or putting on your "polite mask" and maintaining civil appearance.
I also disagree with following line of reasoning:
What people actually need is mutual non-aggression and mutual benefit. "I don't bother you as long as you don't bother me", "I'll do my part of the deal as long as you do yours" and "i'll help you as long as you help me". It doesn't matter if you admire a shop clerk or if said clerk deeply admires you, as long as both of you fullfill your obligations (yours is to pay, and theirs is to provide goods/service), everything is going to work as usual.
That's the way I see it.
Hmm... I see. :-| I think the difference seems mainly semantic, you seem to be more at home with absolutes. Common courtesy, admiration, isolated concepts. I like to see things as part of spectrums, especially with every day tangible things. Absolute concepts have their place, but they're rare in nature.
Much like visible colors, red, green, blue are all part of a gradual spectrum. Similarly, fear is a spectrum, it's biologic, a primitive root for more complex behaviors, such as respect. We don't have to think, we don't calculate this, it comes naturally, that's why we simply feel good when we help others, I personally feel good when I respect someone and that person appreciates it, I don't question it ... but if I do, I trace it down to biology.
The difference is not "absolutes", but having different weights on "like" or "respect" and treating them as separate things.
Raising "respect" value even slightly above the zero take a long time and a lot of effort.
"Like" is a separate thing which increases much faster.
You just added 1 dimension to your absolute definitions.
But it's all valid, there are tons of way people structure how emotions work.
You couldn't be more wrong, and your quote proves it:
He just said some types of speech are hateful, but that fact doesn't mean those types should be illegal or silenced.
So no. You're wrong. There ARE harmful types of speech. That doesn't mean people should be prevented by any legal authority from using those types of speech, it just means that those types of speech are harmful (whether they should suffer public repercussions is another issue entirely).
You're conflating non-mutually exclusive ideas as mutually exclusive.
Which is why the rest of the world has gone 'thanks, but no thanks' on American style free speech. Its one of those political ideals that sounds much nicer on paper then it is in practice.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, in some places at least
It is my opinion that government should not be the determinant of things like whether some type of speech is "permitted" or not (this could be extended out further, as I will do in the next paragraph) because a government cannot possibly represent everyone. Chick-Fil-A may have pro-Christian values, but while an anti-Christian government would suppress their behavior, there would still be some individuals (a fairly large number, by how busy they seem when I drive by) who either don't care or agree with the company's stance.
In a world where everyone is forced to toe the government's line, this kid would have gotten his Trump-styled cake, whether the bakers in California want to make it or not. But they're in America, where they are permitted to refuse.
(my opinion: I find the idea of 9-year-olds being involved with politics at all disturbing)
You can remove the excesses free speech without going to a full authoritarian regime. Like most things in life, there is a complete spectrum of ideas in the middle.
For example you can limit free speech to political arenas with 'freedom of political expression'. You can limit free speech to only cover speech that the speaker has a reasonable reason to believe is true. You can outright forbid speech that encourages violence against another person or group of individuals.
There are all reasonable approaches that have been taken by other western nations. None of this implies an authoritarian government.
A lot of people misunderstand the idea of free speech though, and think that it entitles them to demand an audience and being heard.
The american amendment states that "Congress shall make no laws to prevent ..." and that's pretty much it. Meanign it provides protection from government, but does not mean anyone is can say whatever they want and demand to be heard while suffering no consequences. There's also matter of "libel" which pretty much overrules free speech.