Is it unreasonable to ask members of the site to modify their use of the "N" word?
Yes, it is acceptable
Side Score: 22
|
 |
No, it is unthinkable
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Excon! Once again, I think we agree. I am with you that I do not want the restrictions, but practical considerations matter. If we want the site to have a more or less secure future, we have to adjust how we say things. I think it is interesting that we are in the middle of an example of the free market (in this case selling advertisements) exerting pressure to regulate behavior. This is exactly why I don't think we need government involvement in most aspects of our lives. You, I, the site owners/operators, Google, etc. can all work this out without needing Big Brother to meddle in it. Side: Yes, it is acceptable
Hello again, marcus: We DO agree.. The government that governs least, governs best. Where we probably disagree is exactly where that line is drawn.. For example, I think we need to strictly regulate the environment.. As a capitalist, I would HOPE industry would act in its own best interest. But, as a realist, I don't BELIEVE they do. I remember a time when we (metaphorically) threw our trash on the ground.. I guess we did this because we had sooo much ground, that nobody would notice.. But, we DID notice, and we passed laws to stop it. I don't think we would have stopped if we didn't pass laws. Please correct me if I make unfair assumptions about you.. After all, the environmental movement was started by a conservative.. excon Side: Yes, it is acceptable
It's perfectly acceptable as it is your site. Most who use that word, or at least the one I'm thinking of, use it as a means to poke at people and incite anger, not as a way to inspire thought and debate. If someone leaves because they have been asked not to use the full word then that's up to them. Side: Yes, it is acceptable
The simplest solution would be to add a profanity filter to the site. Users would be able to opt-out of this censor so that they can view curse words if they desire, as is the case with most other sites and online games that use a profanity filter. This both permits free speech and prevents children and others that wish to not see profanity from seeing it. I imagine that it is even possible to have the filter only censor the N word if you are so inclined. Most multiplayer online games and some forums utilize these profanity filters so that by default people cannot see profanities. This makes the site both child and advertiser friendly while still allowing free speech because users can opt-out of the filter. More information about profanity filters is available below: Side: Yes, it is acceptable
Yes, if people are offended by it's use then there should be a blanket ban on it's use. The confusing term'modify their use of the N word is ambiguous and could be open to accidental- on-purpose misinterpretation by the some of the more bolshie members of CB. Side: Yes, it is acceptable
1
point
This is one of many examples of hypocrites on the Left who have no problem at all constantly using "Jesus Christ" as a swear word, but get angry over using the insulting derogatory word "nigger". People should always respect other's in everyday speech, and should always try to reframe from saying things that might offend. I want all the people who use "Jesus Christ" as a swear word in public, but would never say nigger, to look in the mirror at your conditional hypocritical outrage. I guess in this bigotted political correct world, it's ok for people to offend Christians but not those in their special interest groups. Side: Yes, it is acceptable
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
Outlaw has been here for years using the N word. Why don't you ban him next time you come here if you're a real moderator and not a sissy. He's banned me dozens of times, but never has he banned Outlaw despite the fact he uses the N word every other post. I think that unless you treat everybody equally you have little right to be complaining. I've never met a moderator yet who doesn't abuse their power based on their own personal preferences and/or alliances. Human beings just can't help themselves. Give them power and they will abuse it for their own ends. Side: No, it is unthinkable
1
point
I understand perfectly what you're saying as in pressures have been brought to bear on you regarding sponsorship etc , etc , being affected regarding use of the term . Leaving that aside how do you feel personally by its usage ? The use of the term itself seems to get most people into a tizzy yet daily on the site all sorts of equally loaded terms are used and not an eyebrow is raised . Personally I find it strange that it's OK to use n...er but not nigger , if the useage of this word has to be modified why is there an exception made for it and it alone ? Regarding first amendment rights what is the law regarding use of the word ? Is it deemed hate speech ? Side: No, it is unthinkable
1
point
1
point
Dermot, Regarding first amendment rights what is the law regarding use of the word ? Is it deemed hate speech ? Here in the US we do not have hate speech laws. In fact, there is not even a legal definition for the term hate speech. While some leftists, and sheltered academics & their students, call a lot of things hate speech, that term is functionally no more than an ad hominem attack they used to avoid using logic and evidence to address ideas they do not like. It seems to have no clear definition that is consistently applied. - It is legal to say any nasty, hateful or stupid thing you want in the US with three restrictions. - 1 - The statement must not specifically and plainly incite riot or criminal behavior - 2 - The statement must not meet the legal definition of an imminent physical threat (which must include some physical act to demonstrate the imminence of danger), in which case it is called assault. - 3 - The statement must not constitute libel or slander. In the US libel/slander laws have different thresholds for private citizens than for public figures. These address misinformation and lies about people, not insulting statements. Laws regarding libel/slander are civil, not criminal laws. - I find it strange that it's OK to use n...er but not nigger , if the useage of this word has to be modified why is there an exception made for it and it alone ? I agree about the strangeness. People taking offence at diction is juvenile to begin with. Using transparent codes like N-word or F-word is even more juvenile. The exception is not just for this word. On many sites and in many social venues, people throw racial epithets and profanity into the same category, and then apply the rules without discrimination (pardon the pun) for how the word is used, what the content is, etc.. They just figure illogically and without evidence that if someone used the word, then that person must be a racist. The replacement of the whole written word with a version that includes dashes or asterisks, etc. is merely a tool to get past Google's automatic filters. It is doubtful anyone actually read the word and found it to be used in an unkind or disparaging way. It is a pointedly transparent code. Side: Yes, it is acceptable
Thanks a lot for that Marcus and I have a clearer understanding of the first amendment ; it's also very interesting that the US does not have hate speech laws . We have it covered under an incitement to hatred law under European law . Your piece as usual is very well put and informative Side: No, it is unthinkable
It is reasonable for two reasons 1) You own the site. It's your rules and preferences. If they don't like it then they can go start their own. 2) Anyone can ask anyone to do anything. They may not get their way, they may face counter arguments, but that remains to be seen. Personally, I believe a strong debater has more than one way to make their point. So if you take the N word out of their toolbag then should have plenty of other options left, unless that was all they had to start with, and then I don't feel sorry for them at all. Side: No, it is unthinkable
|
