Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

Doesn't change the fact that legally words are considered dangerous in varying ways and people have been convicted of such. Law and order, right?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/05/teens-who-admitted-to-bullying-phoebe-prince-sentenced/

Words are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to inflicting harm on people. I disagree we should be treating them on the same level as terrorism/murder, or else the government can claim everything is hateful to them and start a dictatorship.

Or how about religion? Almost every religion makes direct reference to punishing non-believers with hellfire or eternal doom, and yet they're still allowed to be practice.
If all speech is harmful, than religion would be the first to go.

 

[Papa]

Whether behaviors encourage a person to commit suicide should be considered "violence" or "harmful" is just arguing semantics. The argument was that made that words don't hurt anyone. That is patently wrong.

No, it’s not semantics because of the nebulous nature of “harm”. People can claim that anything causes them harm. I can claim that someone telling me I look tired is harmful to me. Conflating harm and violence is an incredibly slippery slope.

 

[Dragonburn]

I put the burden on the offense-taker, not the offense-giver. Actually, I put it on society and culture for not raising the former to have the emotional fortitude to withstand the offense. Wrapping people in cotton wool does not have the effects you think it does.

Matt. You're not Robocop. You have feelings. You have emotions. And to suggest that you can withstand emotional trauma without shedding a tear in your life is bullshit. You've been hurt and to suggest that no one has ever in entirely of your life GOTTEN to you, a friend ribbing you, a family member giving you grief, a bully mocking you, etc., is outlandish and inhuman. You don't want society to be wrapped in cotton wool? Well, maybe we shouldn't have to be wrapped in steel plating either. Maybe we should just able to let loose and have a good time without worry about some crazy asshole in a subway running up to us and screaming racist epithets at us.

 

[DGrayson]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with what he said or did, but I feel like a moderator telling members they won't be missed is a bad look overall.

I asked that you refrain from posting a comment which brings nothing to the table. In response you said "fine I wont post". If that is your attitude then you wont be missed. If you want to contribute meaningfully then by all means please go ahead.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Words are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to inflicting harm on people.

I thank god you are in the minority on this opinion. The crackdown on bullying and abuse in schools is one of the greatest things to come out of society in the past decade.

 

[Dragonburn]

Words are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to inflicting harm on people. I disagree we should be treating them on the same level as terrorism/murder, or else the government can claim everything is hateful to them and start a dictatorship.

Or how about religion? Almost every religion makes direct reference to punishing non-believers with hellfire or eternal doom, and yet they're still allowed to be practice.
If all speech is harmful, than religion would be the first to go.

First, all speech isn't considered harmful. Second, people have been convicted for years because of harassment and the hurtful words used, especially if that consequence of those words resulted in physical harm to the recipient of those words. The criminal here was sentenced to three and a half years in prison. If you think that's at the bottom of the totem pole, whatever. The point remains that words are legally considered harmful by society at large for over a century now. The end.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...r-stalking-wife-by-impersonating-ex-boyfriend

 

[Papa]

Matt. You're not Robocop. You have feelings. You have emotions. And to suggest that you can withstand emotional trauma without shedding a tear in your life is bullshit. You've been hurt and to suggest that no one has ever in entirely of your life GOTTEN to you, a friend ribbing you, a family member giving you grief, a bully mocking you, etc., is outlandish and inhuman. You don't want society to be wrapped in cotton wool? Well, maybe we shouldn't have to be wrapped in steel plating either. Maybe we should just able to let loose and have a good time without worry about some crazy asshole in a subway running up to us and screaming racist epithets at us.

As an emotionless robot, I reject your use of my given name to attempt to connect with me on a human level.

**Zuck mode off**

In all seriousness, I have emotions, yes, but I am not the law. We are discussing law and order, not me as a human.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I asked that you refrain from posting a comment which brings nothing to the table. In response you said "fine I wont post". If that is your attitude then you wont be missed. If you want to contribute meaningfully then by all means please go ahead.

......



I'm not the person you warned. I was just commenting on what you said as a bystander?

 

[Dragonburn]

As an emotionless robot, I reject your use of my given name to attempt to connect with me on a human level.

**Zuck mode off**

In all seriousness, I have emotions, yes, but I am not the law. We are discussing law and order, not me as a human.

And law and order has patently said words can be considered harmful.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

That is a straight up lie. words are VERY harmful. The alarming suicide rate among bullied teens alone is proof of that. So you can stuff that excuse right off the bat.

Words have indirect impact on their subject.
The severity of this impact is determined by a myriad of factors specific to the subject.
The same words that one person finds upsetting may not upset someone else.
How the subject responds to the words is up to the subject.
This is why you are referring to suicide and not murder. Both are tragic. But they are not the same.

Physical violence has a direct impact on its subject.
Regardless of any other factors, the subject will be physically worse off.

My feeling is that blurring these recognisably distinct things is not constructive.

 

[DGrayson]

......



I'm not the person you warned. I was just commenting on what you said as a bystander?

Haha ya then transfer my comment over. Sorry we are getting tons of reports from this thread.

 

[Corrik]

Okay to make this quick I am gonna lay out 2 separate scenarios. I want yes or no answers. This will tell me what I need to know about your stance.


1) A high ranking member of a major company uses his executive power to molest and harass his female staff members and they stay silent out of fear of reprisal, but then they come out publicly years later. The statute of limitations has expired, but we KNOW he did it.


Should the company be able to fire him?



2) A man is caught on video wearing his company's logo on his shirt and is going a racist tirade yelling slurs and obscenities at innocent passersby.



Should the company be able to fire him?




Just yes or no answers please. I don't need you explaining anything to get what I need. In these 2 cases the law is incapable of doing anything at all, but the court of public opinion CAN do something. The question is in these situations should they be allowed to or not in your opinion.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

Neither is vigilante justice.

I think you are confused on that now. Both of those are examples of employers making staffing decisions.

Scenario 1 though, you have to be careful with the you "KNOW" he did though. That is super slippery and usually you do not actually "KNOW"

 

[Papa]

And law and order has patently said words can be considered harmful.

But not violence, which is the distinction I object to.

 

[Nobody_Important]

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

Neither is vigilante justice.

I think you are confused on that now. Both of those are examples of employers making staffing decisions.

Scenario 1 though, you have to be careful with the you "KNOW" he did though. That is super slippery and usually you do not actually "KNOW"

I think you misunderstood my original point. I was talking about the court of public opinion in the sense that it applies pressure on companies and other outlets to force them to ostracize terrible people who are outside the reach of the law.


Not that people should suddenly rise up and start tar and feathering again.

 

[JordanN]

I thank god you are in the minority on this opinion. The crackdown on bullying and abuse in schools is one of the greatest things to come out of society in the past decade.

And how are they cracking down? Are students forbidden to speak?
When you start prosecuting words, you enter the slippery slope of cracking down on anyone suspected of hate speech. The nice thing about words is they can be countered with more words.
Use that to your advantage instead of running to the government who will end up using the same hate speech laws against you.

Or like I said in an another post, if we're cracking down on hateful speech, why isn't religion being targeted? Plenty of traumatizing stories are found in holy books.

 

[bitbydeath]

Haha ya then transfer my comment over. Sorry we are getting tons of reports from this thread.

Crazy that people can’t just talk rationally. Reporting against people should only be used if verbal abuse is made against someone.

 

[Nobody_Important]

And how are they cracking down? Are students forbidden to speak?

No but bullying treated far more seriously than it was before. Gone are the days of "you just need to toughen up" and "its just kids being kids". No school wants to be the next one to have its name plastered across the front page when a student kills themselves.


Its not perfect, but its better than the shitshow of no consequences we had before it.

 

[Corrik]

Google Emmett then. Trayvon Martin was walking home minding his own business and was murdered in cold blood over it. It's a perfect example of vigilante justice. George Zimmerman got away with it too. It doesn't matter if you think it's right if it's what's actually happening to minorities on the street every day. Eric Garner. Philando Castile. Freddie Gray. Sandra Bland. Vigilante justice is let loose up minorities all year long.

Do you intend to argue in good faith?

That is NOT what happened with Trayvon Martin. He was not followed home and murdered while he was minding his own business. That is a blatant misrepresentation which I can only think you actually did it on purpose.

Yes, Zimmerman was being awkward and was watching Trayvon because he suspected him of a crime or of looking to do one. He was a member of the neighborhood watch.

He was asked repeatedly by cops the movements of Trayvon on his phone call. Trayvon went running. He got out of the car, against the dispatch's advice "we don't need you to do that".

Trayvon Martin at some point strikes Zimmerman causing damage to his face that is consistent with a broken nose or close to it. Zimmerman fires and kills Trayvon Martin.

That is not vigilante justice. What was he getting justice for? Nothing. I do not understand the mis-appliance of terms by multiple users in this topic.

He was being vigilant in his actions, sure. He was not applying vigilante justice.

He either A. Murdered him for no reason or B. Was acting in self-defense of the situation.

This is probably a great topic for this as does being a "creepy ass cracka" as Trayvon puts it give you the right to punch someone?

If this man in this video shoots this black man who has punched him repeatedly and forced him onto railroad tracks, is this man acting in self-defense or is he a murderer?

You can argue Zimmerman shouldn't have been there at all. You could argue neighborhood watches should not exist. You just cannot argue that Zimmerman was carrying out vigilante justice because nothing supports that. What was the justice for?

 

[JordanN]

No but bullying treated far more seriously than it was before. Gone are the days of "you just need to toughen up" and "its just kids being kids". No school wants to be the next one to have its name plastered across the front page when a student kills themselves.


Its not perfect, but its better than the shitshow of no consequences we had before it.

What is wrong with teaching students to stick up for themselves?
This is the problem by trying to let the schools/governments take care of everything for you. You are telling kids they need a nanny to protect them at every turn when they should be learning how to outsmart bullies.
Or why not promote students who get picked on to form groups? How much more likely is a bully when he is outnumbered by more kids than him/her?

Just trying to ban words is a placebo effect. It might work in the short term, but there's no telling how many times in life someone will come up to you and hurl nasty stuff at you. Instead give kids the life experience now so when they're an adult, they literally become Teflon to future bullies instead of having to scream "GOVERNMEN HELP ME!!!".

 

[Corrik]

Haha ya then transfer my comment over. Sorry we are getting tons of reports from this thread.

Probably just because it is by far the most popular thread on the entire forum by long shot right now. With a powder keg topic of racism which everyone wants to view as black and white. Lol

 

[Nobody_Important]

What is wrong with teaching students to stick up for themselves?
This is the problem by trying to let the schools/governments take care of everything for you. You are telling kids they need a nanny to protect them at every turn when they should be learning how to outsmart bullies.
Or why not promote students who get picked on to form groups? How much more likely is a bully when he is outnumbered by more kids than him/her?

Just trying to ban words is a placebo effect. It might work in the short term, but there's no telling how many times in life someone will come up to you and hurl nasty stuff at you. Instead give kids the life experience now so when they're an adult, they literally become Teflon to future bullies instead of having to scream "GOVERNMEN HELP ME!!!".

Like I said before. Extremely thankful you are in the minority on this point.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Trayvon Martin was walking home minding his own business and was murdered in cold blood over it. It's a perfect example of vigilante justice. George Zimmerman got away with it too.

Oh for Pete's sake. This is just blatantly dismissive of essential facts.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Zimmerman_back_of_head.jpg
- Smith observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass, and he was bleeding from the nose and the back of his head.
- According to Zimmerman, Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk.

Zimmerman might be a liar, racist, and murderer who couldn't stand losing a fight to some kid, or Martin could have put Zimmerman into a position where he had to take a life to save his his own. We don't know. Nobody knows.

We don't know what happened = not guilty in America. It's just the way the law works, and when applied fairly, it would also protect Martin if Zimmerman was the one shot while struggling with the gun.

Okay to make this quick I am gonna lay out 2 separate scenarios. I want yes or no answers. This will tell me what I need to know about your stance.


1) A high ranking member of a major company uses his executive power to molest and harass his female staff members and they stay silent out of fear of reprisal, but then they come out publicly years later. The statute of limitations has expired, but we KNOW he did it.


Should the company be able to fire him?



2) A man is caught on video wearing his company's logo on his shirt and is going a racist tirade yelling slurs and obscenities at innocent passersby.



Should the company be able to fire him?




Just yes or no answers please. I don't need you explaining anything to get what I need. In these 2 cases the law is incapable of doing anything at all, but the court of public opinion CAN do something. The question is in these situations should they be allowed to or not in your opinion.

Sorry, but I like explaining the reasons I have for my opinions.

Your workplace in America can fire you because they don't like the color of your shirt that day, so of course they should be able to fire someone if an internal investigation found an executive was guilty of sexual harassment or their brand was tarnished by public association with a racist.

1 - Yes.
2 - Yes.
3 - Also yes.

 

[Papa]

Haha ya then transfer my comment over. Sorry we are getting tons of reports from this thread.

lol wtf, this has been a pretty civil thread. What kinda snowflake is reporting comments in here?

(Rhetorical question, not expecting a response).

 

[JordanN]

Like I said before. Extremely thankful you are in the minority on this point.

Be careful what you wish for.

The less people who can think for themselves = the more people who are held captive by those bigger than them.
If you're a raising a generation of kids whose first response is to run to the school for help, how will they function later in life where there wont be teachers around to answer their every needs?
They become bigger victims in life, instead of having the experience to defend themselves without outside help.

But if you really think the government is the perfect baby sitter well... good luck.

 

[Papa]

Like I said before. Extremely thankful you are in the minority on this point.

He’s not, but you’ve conveniently ignored several of my posts that counter your weak logic.

 

[Nobody_Important]

He’s not, but you’ve conveniently ignored several of my posts that counter your weak logic.

Oh I'm in the minority? I must have just imagined the last few years of political correctness becoming mainstream and widespread......

 

[Dunki]

And law and order has patently said words can be considered harmful.

Where?

Even these fightin words do not qualify here besides it looks like fighting words never mattered in terms of law to begin with.

When "I am gonna fucking kill you" does not qualify then this does not either.

 

[Papa]

Oh I'm in the minority? I must have just imagined the last few years of political correctness becoming mainstream and widespread......

You come across really, really young.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

No but bullying treated far more seriously than it was before. Gone are the days of "you just need to toughen up" and "its just kids being kids". No school wants to be the next one to have its name plastered across the front page when a student kills themselves.


Its not perfect, but its better than the shitshow of no consequences we had before it.

the whole bullying leads to suicide isnt actually true at all. look it up its a super low percentage of suicide based on any kind of bullying. and there is something to becoming a stronger person because of adversity. lots of people never have actually faced any kind and thats why victimhood is a thing. im not saying people need to be treated like shit but coddling people is a lot worse if you ask me

 

[Nobody_Important]

You come across really, really young.

I'm 27 so yeah I am relatively young, but you pretending that schools haven't cracked down on bullying in recent years due to the harmful effects it has on children is laughable. You know damn well they have. Kids cannot get away with a FRACTION of the stuff they could get away with in the past.



Now you can argue whether or not its a good thing like Jordan did, but to pretend its not happening and its not what the majority of schools are doing is just ridiculous. You are actively ignoring reality at that point.

 

[KevinKeene]

This wasn't bullying. It's a disingenuous goalpost move to extend 'words do not harm' to bullying. Bullying is a specific, most malicious appliance of words. A singular verbal insult is not bullying.

Bullying is the prolonged, systematic harrassment of someone. Bullying indeed does justify physical violence if nothing is done to make it stop. Unfortunately we live in a society where children won't get properly punished by law, so school bullies are mostly immune, which is horrible.

But a singular insult is not bullying. You can walk away, reply to or call the police in case of being insulted. You cannot in case of bullying.

 

[Dunki]

the whole bullying leads to suicide isnt actually true at all. look it up its a super low percentage of suicide based on any kind of bullying. and there is something to becoming a stronger person because of adversity. lots of people never have actually faced any kind and thats why victimhood is a thing. im not saying people need to be treated like shit but coddling people is a lot worse if you ask me

Also if you compare this to bullying I can see that you never got bullied before. Furthermore bullying is way more than just words. Its actions, its violence in many cases, its stealing and destroying your property and so on Bullying is far from saying a stupid word to a stranger. Bullying is psycho terror for a long period of time until the victim breaks

 

[bitbydeath]

Oh I'm in the minority? I must have just imagined the last few years of political correctness becoming mainstream and widespread......

It isn’t.
If you read through comment sections on most sites (even reddit) you’ll notice most are against the PC movement.

They are a loud bunch but far from being any form of majority.

 

[Dunki]

It isn’t.
If you read through comment sections on most sites (even reddit) you’ll notice most are against the PC movement.

They are a loud bunch but far from being any form of majority.

Because if you do you are being labeled as a sexist/racist Nazi etc even by the press. That is why the left and its political correctness has become fascism

 

[Papa]

I'm 27 so yeah I am relatively young, but you pretending that schools haven't cracked down on bullying in recent years due to the harmful effects it has on children is laughable. You know damn well they have. Kids cannot get away with a FRACTION of the stuff they could get away with in the past.



Now you can argue whether or not its a good thing like Jordan did, but to pretend its not happening and its not what the majority of schools are doing is just ridiculous. You are actively ignoring reality at that point.

Where did I say any of this?

 

[Nobody_Important]

It isn’t.
If you read through comment sections on most sites (even reddit) you’ll notice most are against the PC movement.

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not and I am not even kidding. Relying on random internet comments for a measure of a popular opinion is absurd lol



Going by that logic someone can go to YouTube and watch almost anything and come to the conclusion that the entirety of the human race consists of shitfaced assholes lol

 

[bitbydeath]

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not and I am not even kidding. Relying on random internet comments for a measure of a popular opinion is absurd lol



Going by that logic someone can go to YouTube and watch almost anything and come to the conclusion that the entirety of humanity are abuse of shitfaced assholes lol

Don’t just resort to one site. I highlighted reddit as it is a large popular site that features many walks of life in it. But same applies to many sites.

Random internet comments are more favourable than stories looking for clicks/views.

 

[idontlikeusernames]

MODERATION NOTE: Going forward please let's try to stir away from inciting image of violence. This behavior is counter productive to healthy discussion. Thank you.

Unfortunate no train was coming.

Call me a nigger .. your life will be in immediate danger

Do I get to endanger your life if you call me a mean word?

 

[Nobody_Important]

Don’t just resort to one site. I highlighted reddit as it is a large popular site that features many walks of life in it. But same applies to many sites.

Random internet comments are more favourable than stories looking for clicks/views.

Yeah sorry but I am not gonna rely on random comments on the internet to measure the national mood. Especially when 90% of them are posted in a bias manner on biased stories. No thanks. I'll stick to social media, the news, reality and my own personal experience when it comes to my measure of what people want lol

 

[Dunki]

Yeah sorry but I am not gonna rely on random comments on the internet to measure the national mood. Especially when 90% of them are posted in a bias manner on biased stories. No thanks. I'll stick to social media, the news, reality and my own personal experience when it comes to my measure of what people want lol

which are also echo chambers depending on who you follow or which news site you are visiting etc.

 

[Nobody_Important]

which are also echo chambers depending on who you follow or which news site you are visiting etc.

True, but I trust an actual news organizations and the literal numerical majority on the most popular social media sites than random messages in the comment sections of the internet lol

 

[Dunki]

True, but I trust an actual news organizations and the literal numerical majority on the most popular social media sites than random messages in the comment sections of the internet lol

I am the opposite these days. Every journalistic news site who writes articles based on twitter or facebook posts and who are not tabloids and celebrity talk is not a trusted source in my opinion. Sadly this now goes for CNN, BBC, Guardian, Washington post, fox and so on

 

[Nobody_Important]

I am the opposite these days. Every journalistic news site who writes articles based on twitter or facebook posts and who are not tabloids and celebrity talk is not a trusted source in my opinion. Sadly this now goes for CNN, BBC, Guardian, Washington post, fox and so on

Then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Just because you don't like what the news says does not make it incorrect or fake. One of the greatest crimes of the Trump Era is gonna be the distrust that the buffoon has peddled when it comes to the media.

 

[idontlikeusernames]

They should stop publishing fake news if they don't wanna be called fake news. Them saying Trump advocated for sexual assault is a prime example of fake news.

 

[Dunki]

Then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Just because you don't like what the news says does not make it incorrect or fake. One of the greatest crimes of the Trump Era is gonna be the distrust that the buffoon has peddled when it comes to the media.

The problem I have with these sites that they represent it in a very one sided way. For example the firing of Tim Hunt or Peterson (vice) how they cut interviews and videos so that it does fit their own political view.

Like this for example: Every news source I cited wrote somethign about it and if you look it up they lied, the cut things out they did not even do their research

The "Tim Hunt, misogynist scientist” narrative has been falling apart piece by piece over the past month.

And this is just a small example of todays Journalism and how they decide whats true and what not. These kind of news and articles are the reason I do not trust Journalism these days anymore. It has been very difficult to find sources you can trust saying the truth and who not pusing some political agenda through lies and false information. They do not even fact check their sources aka Golden Shower Trump scandal.

 

[idontlikeusernames]

The problem I have with these sites that they represent it in a very one sided way. For example the firing of Tim Hunt or Peterson (vice) how they cut interviews and videos so that it does fit their own political view.

Like this for example: Every news source I cited wrote somethign about it and if you look it up they lied, the cut things out they did not even do their research

The "Tim Hunt, misogynist scientist” narrative has been falling apart piece by piece over the past month.

And this is just a small example of todays Journalism and how they decide whats true and what not. These kind of news and articles are the reason I do not trust Journalism these days anymore. It has been very difficult to ou trust say the truth and who are just pushing their agenda wie lies

Saying Trump advocated for sexual assault too. He said when you are rich and famous they LET you do it. They always seem to leave that important part of the statement out. Fake news.

 

[Nobody_Important]

He said when you are rich and famous they LET you do it. They always seem to leave that important part of the statement out. Fake news.

What utter bullshit. By saying "hey if you are famous enough and rich enough they just let you do it you don't even have to ask" he is clearly implying that at a certain point you are rich enough and famous enough to pressure them into silence and/or obedience. That is not the same thing as consent. This trend is also shown in cases like Weinstein, Cosby and numerous other show business related claims where the victims stayed silent out of fear for their career.



"OHHOHO BUT THEY JUST LET YOU MAN" as if women are just sitting around waiting for rich and famous dudes they have never met to molest them suddenly without asking for consent first. Are you fucking serious right now?



Can't believe I had to actually explain that just now.

 

[idontlikeusernames]

he is clearly implying that at a certain point you are rich enough and famous enough to pressure them into silence and/or obedience.

No, that's your hallucination.

 

[Corrik]

How is talking about a punch and it's justification evolving to sexual assault for the president?

 

[Nobody_Important]

No, that's your hallucination.

No that is the reality of the situation backed up by dozens upon dozens of similar sexual assault cases that have surfaced in the past 3 years when it comes to show business related assaults. The most common theme being they feared for their careers.



That is not an opinion. That is a fact backed up by stories from victims of Weinstein and Cosby. Thats not even mentioning other cases.