Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
"A CALL TO ARMS FOR DECENT MEN"
Posts
Irili
3198
Irili
View playlists
CloseJust an article I found interesting. I've never experienced any kind of abuse online but I know plenty of people who have. Would you agree with some of the actions suggested here such as:
Do you think this is a problem that should be tackled by the gamers or the game companies?
Discuss. Oh, and the link to the full article below.
A Call to Arms for Decent Men
Mockery. In 1993 50 Ku Klux Klansmen marched through Austin, Texas. Five thousand anti-Klan protestors turned up to jeer at them. Best of all, several hundred lined the parade route and mooned the Klan in waves. The media ate it up, and the Klan looked ridiculous. The hurt that they wanted to cause was met not with anger but with derision. The juvenile delinquents are just like the Klan in 1993: anonymous in their high-tech bedsheets, and threatening, but in fact, a minority. Let's use our superior numbers and metaphorically moon the boys who can't behave. They're social inadequates, immature losers. Let's tell them so, loud and clear, in front of their friends.
Shut them up. The right to speak in a public forum should be limited to those who don't abuse it. James Portnow suggested this one in his Extra Credits video on harassment. Anyone who persistently abuses others gets automatically muted to all players. The only players who can hear them are those who choose to unmute them. Or another of James' suggestions: New users don't even get the right to talk. They have to earn it, and they keep it only so long as they behave themselves. This means a player can't just create a new account to start spewing filth again if they've been auto-muted. Build these features into your games.
Take away their means. If you're the father of a boy who behaves like this online, make it abundantly clear to him that it is unmanly and unacceptable, then deny him the opportunity to do it further. We don't let nine-year-olds misuse tools to hurt other people. Take away his cell phone, his console and his computer. He can learn to behave like a man, or he can turn in his homework in longhand like a child.
Anonymity is a privilege, not a right. Anonymity is a double-edged sword. A limited number of people need it in certain circumstances: children, crime victims, whistleblowers, people discussing their medical conditions, political dissidents in repressive regimes. But those people normally don't misuse their anonymity to abuse others; they're protecting themselves from abuse. I think the default setting in all online forums that are not intended for people at risk should require real names. After a user has demonstrated that they are a grown-up, then offer them the privilege of using a pseudonym. And take it away forever if they misuse it. I haven't used a nickname for years except in one place where all the readers know who I am anyway. Has it made me more careful about what I say? You bet. Is that a good thing? Damn right it is.
Impose punishments that are genuinely painful. This suggestion is extreme, but I feel it's both viable and effective. To play subscription-based or pay-as-you-go ("free-to-play-but-not-really") games, most players need to register a credit card with the game's provider. Include a condition in the terms of service that entitles the provider to levy extra charges for bad behavior. Charge $5 for the first infraction and double it for each subsequent one. This isn't all that unusual; if you smoke in a non-smoking hotel room, you are typically subject to a whopping extra charge for being a jerk.
Shut them up. The right to speak in a public forum should be limited to those who don't abuse it. James Portnow suggested this one in his Extra Credits video on harassment. Anyone who persistently abuses others gets automatically muted to all players. The only players who can hear them are those who choose to unmute them. Or another of James' suggestions: New users don't even get the right to talk. They have to earn it, and they keep it only so long as they behave themselves. This means a player can't just create a new account to start spewing filth again if they've been auto-muted. Build these features into your games.
Take away their means. If you're the father of a boy who behaves like this online, make it abundantly clear to him that it is unmanly and unacceptable, then deny him the opportunity to do it further. We don't let nine-year-olds misuse tools to hurt other people. Take away his cell phone, his console and his computer. He can learn to behave like a man, or he can turn in his homework in longhand like a child.
Anonymity is a privilege, not a right. Anonymity is a double-edged sword. A limited number of people need it in certain circumstances: children, crime victims, whistleblowers, people discussing their medical conditions, political dissidents in repressive regimes. But those people normally don't misuse their anonymity to abuse others; they're protecting themselves from abuse. I think the default setting in all online forums that are not intended for people at risk should require real names. After a user has demonstrated that they are a grown-up, then offer them the privilege of using a pseudonym. And take it away forever if they misuse it. I haven't used a nickname for years except in one place where all the readers know who I am anyway. Has it made me more careful about what I say? You bet. Is that a good thing? Damn right it is.
Impose punishments that are genuinely painful. This suggestion is extreme, but I feel it's both viable and effective. To play subscription-based or pay-as-you-go ("free-to-play-but-not-really") games, most players need to register a credit card with the game's provider. Include a condition in the terms of service that entitles the provider to levy extra charges for bad behavior. Charge $5 for the first infraction and double it for each subsequent one. This isn't all that unusual; if you smoke in a non-smoking hotel room, you are typically subject to a whopping extra charge for being a jerk.
Do you think this is a problem that should be tackled by the gamers or the game companies?
Discuss. Oh, and the link to the full article below.
A Call to Arms for Decent Men
Dyhalto
7536
Forums tend to police themselves. No issues there.
And there's been a mute button in online games since Half Life (or even earlier?). People would rather just complain than use it.
This article is way behind the times. Maybe it'd be relevant back in 1995.
And there's been a mute button in online games since Half Life (or even earlier?). People would rather just complain than use it.
This article is way behind the times. Maybe it'd be relevant back in 1995.
Shinan
4314
It's very much not behind the times. Because times have not changed. I read this some time ago. I believe it was linked from one of the kickstarter projects I backed (of all things! http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zombieorpheus/the-gamers-hands-of-fate/posts/275557 ).
I think this whole thing is a real problem. Though I don't know what else to say about it other than agree: "damn straight it's us who should do something about it."
I think this whole thing is a real problem. Though I don't know what else to say about it other than agree: "damn straight it's us who should do something about it."
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
OK, this is boring if everyone agrees, so to get kind of a debate going here, let me stand up for the other side.
I'm in favor of free speech at any cost. If freedom of speech is costing people their happiness, or even their lives, then that's unfortunate but is preferable to censorship. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized world where you're not beheaded for speaking out against the state religion and it's not treason to suggest that your totalitarian leaders should be replaced.
Yes, it sucks that people say things you disagree with and that they come across as assholes. No, that doesn't give you the right to control what other people are allowed to say. If you disagree, feel free to move to Iran or China, where it's the dominant mindset, and bask in how well it works there. You might begin to notice how the people in control of speech over there don't all necessarily agree with you on what kinds of comments should and shouldn't be allowed? Yeah, that's the thing that inevitably happens when you allow that kind of restriction of speech.
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.
I'm in favor of free speech at any cost. If freedom of speech is costing people their happiness, or even their lives, then that's unfortunate but is preferable to censorship. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized world where you're not beheaded for speaking out against the state religion and it's not treason to suggest that your totalitarian leaders should be replaced.
Yes, it sucks that people say things you disagree with and that they come across as assholes. No, that doesn't give you the right to control what other people are allowed to say. If you disagree, feel free to move to Iran or China, where it's the dominant mindset, and bask in how well it works there. You might begin to notice how the people in control of speech over there don't all necessarily agree with you on what kinds of comments should and shouldn't be allowed? Yeah, that's the thing that inevitably happens when you allow that kind of restriction of speech.
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.
I kinda agree with LockeZ. Except for maybe the last part, because part of free speech should include being able to use hate speech and intimidation tactics. Eye for an eye there.
Also, people blow the whole online game bullying thing way out of proportion. Playstation Home used to be a really fun time until Mods started locking us in our rooms for stepping out of line even a little bit. My best friend and I had so much fun on there. He would have an avatar that looked like Jesus, and he'd go around preaching nonsensical retarded crap, and people would actually follow him in droves because he would abuse the glitches (gliding on air was the coolest) and they wanted him to teach them everything he knew. Of course, when all was said and done, he never taught anyone any of it lol. Fast forward a few months, he was banned for life because he refused to change his avatar. The mods said he was bullying Christians. Fuck that. And of course, I had the skinny avatar chick, and crowds of sad losers would line up to hit on me. Right when they thought they had my interest, I'd change my avatar to a fat, ugly, purple tinted troll. Mods banned me for two weeks because I was "attacking egos". LOL. Yeah, it was a pathetic sort of bullying, but anyone who wants to get depressed over it and go commit suicide, be my guest.
It's not to say the whole online bullying thing as a whole isn't a problem. I recently heard about a young girl who killed herself over facebook comments on her page. But honestly, how do you fight against something like that? If someone is truly that emotionally fragile, any little thing could set them off.
I'm being way too vague here, as I could write a book for each side of the argument. That's just the top of my head tip of the iceberg diddy that I'll both start and end with, so as not to write too long.
Also, people blow the whole online game bullying thing way out of proportion. Playstation Home used to be a really fun time until Mods started locking us in our rooms for stepping out of line even a little bit. My best friend and I had so much fun on there. He would have an avatar that looked like Jesus, and he'd go around preaching nonsensical retarded crap, and people would actually follow him in droves because he would abuse the glitches (gliding on air was the coolest) and they wanted him to teach them everything he knew. Of course, when all was said and done, he never taught anyone any of it lol. Fast forward a few months, he was banned for life because he refused to change his avatar. The mods said he was bullying Christians. Fuck that. And of course, I had the skinny avatar chick, and crowds of sad losers would line up to hit on me. Right when they thought they had my interest, I'd change my avatar to a fat, ugly, purple tinted troll. Mods banned me for two weeks because I was "attacking egos". LOL. Yeah, it was a pathetic sort of bullying, but anyone who wants to get depressed over it and go commit suicide, be my guest.
It's not to say the whole online bullying thing as a whole isn't a problem. I recently heard about a young girl who killed herself over facebook comments on her page. But honestly, how do you fight against something like that? If someone is truly that emotionally fragile, any little thing could set them off.
I'm being way too vague here, as I could write a book for each side of the argument. That's just the top of my head tip of the iceberg diddy that I'll both start and end with, so as not to write too long.
author=LockeZBenjamin Franklin actually said the same thing (it's my favorite quote of his), albeit on a different subject:
I'm in favor of free speech at any cost. If freedom of speech is costing people their happiness, or even their lives, then that's unfortunate but is preferable to censorship. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized world where you're not beheaded for speaking out against the state religion and it's not treason to suggest that your totalitarian leaders should be replaced.
Benjamin FranklinTo put it short because I don't feel like writing an entire essay, I'm in agreement with LockeZ and good ol' Ben Franklin. If you want freedom then you also need to put with the baggage that freedom entails; if you can't, well, tough luck.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
EDIT:
To answer the original question of the topic, I say the problem should be dealt by the parents of kids that are socially inept (and if we're talking adults, the people around that person). It's the duty of the parents to make sure their kids are properly educated in social etiquette, a duty that I feel is beginning to lax nowadays. Addressing the problem in any other fashion is futile because you'd not be answering to the core of the problem.
Irili
3198
I quite like the mute option. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article but the fact of the matter is, if you don't like someone or something, flick that mute button on and don't listen to them.
Freedom of speech is an important right. However, does the United States Declaration of Independence not state "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights? Yes, harassing others may make an online bully happy. Where does his/her pursuit of happiness impede on others happiness?
I think there is a lot of gray area here which makes the problem so difficult to deal with. Personally, I don't feel threatened unless someone is physically trying to hurt me. Words don't really effect me that much because of how much of it I put up with in school. Other people don't feel the same though. People are different. Yes, freedom should come before safety unless we want to lose that freedom altogether. But that shouldn't be an excuse for acting like an asshat.
author=LockeZ
I'm in favor of free speech at any cost. If freedom of speech is costing people their happiness, or even their lives, then that's unfortunate but is preferable to censorship. It's the price you pay to live in a civilized world where you're not beheaded for speaking out against the state religion and it's not treason to suggest that your totalitarian leaders should be replaced.
Freedom of speech is an important right. However, does the United States Declaration of Independence not state "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights? Yes, harassing others may make an online bully happy. Where does his/her pursuit of happiness impede on others happiness?
I think there is a lot of gray area here which makes the problem so difficult to deal with. Personally, I don't feel threatened unless someone is physically trying to hurt me. Words don't really effect me that much because of how much of it I put up with in school. Other people don't feel the same though. People are different. Yes, freedom should come before safety unless we want to lose that freedom altogether. But that shouldn't be an excuse for acting like an asshat.
Dyhalto
7536
Freedom of Speech relates to opinions and ideas. It doesn't mean you can launch personal attacks or slander at leisure.
The gist of the article is that we, as a community, should build methods of having people 'earn' the right to speak. You could do this, and it wouldn't be 'unfair' since it was enacted democratically, but it would only be to the detriment of the community, further entrenching old elitists who hate everything new (schmup?).
Mute button is still #1.
The gist of the article is that we, as a community, should build methods of having people 'earn' the right to speak. You could do this, and it wouldn't be 'unfair' since it was enacted democratically, but it would only be to the detriment of the community, further entrenching old elitists who hate everything new (schmup?).
Mute button is still #1.
Shinan
4314
I read the article (or the article that linked the article originally, there were a bunch of articles in that so maybe there's multiple takes on the same subject. There probably is) as wanting to get rid of the "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" mentality that is often forced upon many communities (gaming in particular).
I mean stuff like this.
Or you probably remember this. Which likely is what created the article in the first place. Gamers are a bunch of sexist, racist morons and that's just a fact. And it's not just parents that have to do stuff about this. Apart from you know basic parenting but the article is explicitly about "grown up" people acting like little children.
Speaking of tangentially related I remember reading something about Valve wanting to charge more from bad people. Who doesn't love that.
I mean stuff like this.
Or you probably remember this. Which likely is what created the article in the first place. Gamers are a bunch of sexist, racist morons and that's just a fact. And it's not just parents that have to do stuff about this. Apart from you know basic parenting but the article is explicitly about "grown up" people acting like little children.
Speaking of tangentially related I remember reading something about Valve wanting to charge more from bad people. Who doesn't love that.
author=DyhaltoActually, Freedom of Speech extends to anything and everything that you say, including but not limited to personal attacks and slander if you happen to lean that way. In other words, you can hurl all the insults you want.
Freedom of Speech relates to opinions and ideas. It doesn't mean you can launch personal attacks or slander at leisure.
The keyword here however is "can". Yes you can hurl all the insults you want, nobody who truly believes in Freedom of Speech will be able to stop you without contradicting themselves, but that doesn't mean you won't be looked down upon by your peers.
For example, could I possibly say that "KKK is awesome"? Sure I could! I would also be likely lynched by an angry mob and shunned by society as we know it, but I can if I wanted to. Could I write an article full of lies and publish it? Of course I could! I would be labeled and shunned as a liar and nobody would trust me afterwards, but I can if I wanted to.
This is what Freedom of Speech is about and why it is so difficult to maintain: Freedom of Speech does not involve itself in any potential consequences of something you might say; Freedom of Speech only goes as far as to guarantee you the right to say what is on your mind. Freedom of Speech is a double-edged sword, but if we were to cut into that with a knife and begin saying that certain things don't apply to Freedom of Speech, Benjamin Franklin will tell you sooner or later we won't have any Freedom of Speech to speak of.
Freedom of speech is an important right. However, does the United States Declaration of Independence not state "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights? Yes, harassing others may make an online bully happy. Where does his/her pursuit of happiness impede on others happiness?The unalienable right to a Pursuit of Happiness only applies as long as that pursuit is not detrimental to another person. Freedom of Speech also does not protect an individual from the consequences of what he says, only affording protection to guarantee that individual a right to say what he wants. If a person speaks ill of someone and that someone is offended, the person who spoke ill will not be protected by neither of the rights to Pursuit of Happiness or Freedom of Speech (more accurately, the rights simply wouldn't apply) and he will have to answer for his words.
Maybe in theory, but when it comes to practice, freedom of speech does not cover things like slander, libel or threats. That much is fact.
'Freedom of speech' aside, I don't really have a problem with this kind of measures. After all, game communities (and I don't mean the users) are business first and communities last; they're free to regulate themselves in any way they see fit as long as it's under the law. I just think that the people who propose these ideas do it for all the wrong reasons and aren't thinking things well enough. For example, charging people more and more for each subsequent infraction would eventually bite the average user in the ass.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg, really. The article is all kinds of awful! I couldn't finish reading it...
'Freedom of speech' aside, I don't really have a problem with this kind of measures. After all, game communities (and I don't mean the users) are business first and communities last; they're free to regulate themselves in any way they see fit as long as it's under the law. I just think that the people who propose these ideas do it for all the wrong reasons and aren't thinking things well enough. For example, charging people more and more for each subsequent infraction would eventually bite the average user in the ass.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg, really. The article is all kinds of awful! I couldn't finish reading it...
author=alteregoYou're misunderstanding the extent to which Freedom of Speech applies. Things like slander and threats are in fact looked down upon by society at large, this much we agree, and there are consequences for such behavior, but there is (and should be) nothing directly prohibiting me from slandering or threatening someone.
Maybe in theory, but when it comes to practice, freedom of speech does not cover things like slander, libel or threats. That much is fact.
Saying that things such as slander and threats are not protected under the right to Freedom of Speech is especially dangerous because whether something constitutes as the previously stated depends entirely upon the interpretation of the recipient. Taking this to its logical conclusion, if we are to say Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say something because it might have a remote chance of offending or hurting someone, we enter the quagmire we already encounter in certain areas today known as political correctness; the media is a good example of this.
To put it differently, if someone were to forbid me from calling a person a "retard" because it will offend the recipient, they are in fact infringing upon my right to Freedom of Speech and I will call them out on it. Of course, this doesn't mean I can escape the repercussions of calling a person a "retard" and I will have to answer for my behavior.
Freedom of Speech was never intended to be a moral shield, or even related to morals at all, and never will be. Freedom of Speech is a neutral, very simple, fundamental human right to speak your mind freely. That's it, nothing more and nothing less.
EDIT: Grammar correction.
author=LockeZ
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.
There is a difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Consequences of Free Speech. Are you high? Are you really suggesting that people should be able to say what they want without having to take accountability for what they've said? Part of being an adult is realizing 'Hey, I can say this thing, but that also means I'll have to accept the results, good or bad, of what I've said.'
author=KingArthur
You're misunderstanding the extent to which Freedom of Speech applies. Things like slander and threats are in fact looked down upon by society at large, this much we agree, and there are consequences for such behavior, but there is (and should be) nothing directly prohibiting me from slandering or threatening someone.
Mmh... I'm not sure if I follow. I'm not talking about people just giving you the stink eye, I'm referring to actually getting the police on your case if you threaten someone or if you incite to violence, stuff like that. Perhaps there should be nothing prohibiting people from doing it, but as far as I know there are laws about it, and while the line is set very high (for example, in the case of threats the harm must be deemed as "imminent" or something like that) there is one and most people will agree that there should be one.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Feldschlacht IVauthor=LockeZThere is a difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Consequences of Free Speech. Are you high? Are you really suggesting that people should be able to say what they want without having to take accountability for what they've said? Part of being an adult is realizing 'Hey, I can say this thing, but that also means I'll have to accept the results, good or bad, of what I've said.'
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.
Well, that paragraph was a seperate, unrelated argument, it had nothing to do with free speech. I was basically saying that, even if you don't agree with the free speech argument, here's a second argument to consider: you're doing exactly what they're doing except you've got a hundred times as many people doing it, so you haven't improved society. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the KKK alone in that case?
Dyhalto
7536
author=KingArthurj/k
*mute*
Fundamentally, I agree with you. I wish we could have a society where people would acknowledge the freedoms we have and use them responsibly, but humans are flawed and practical application has to be considered.
AE already mentioned situations where speech can be used to incite violence. The very nature of push is to become shove. Gang members talking trash is harmless, until it becomes a shooting war. Your own example of saying "KKK is awesome" then being lynched by a mob works against your own point. Freedom of Speech would protect your right to irritate and harass people, but you're also legally protected from their violent response, thus, no consequences for your abusive actions. Pretending that people will stop at verbal slander and never degrade to fist fighting is naive. Hell, common advice for dealing with bullies is to knock them hard on their ass.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like this hyper-politically correct society either. There's a balance to be maintained, and we've gone way off the deep end, but I'd rather see Freedom of Speech invoked to protect people who speak out against their government, than to protect shit-talking gamer kids.
edit : grammar correction of my own
author=LockeZauthor=Feldschlacht IVWell, that paragraph was a seperate, unrelated argument, it had nothing to do with free speech. I was basically saying that, even if you don't agree with the free speech argument, here's a second argument to consider: you're doing exactly what they're doing except you've got a hundred times as many people doing it, so you haven't improved society. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the KKK alone in that case?author=LockeZThere is a difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Consequences of Free Speech. Are you high? Are you really suggesting that people should be able to say what they want without having to take accountability for what they've said? Part of being an adult is realizing 'Hey, I can say this thing, but that also means I'll have to accept the results, good or bad, of what I've said.'
Also, in your first example, I'll note that the protestors being derisive of the KKK were being as bad as the KKK. The KKK was actually doing a peaceful demonstration for a change, and everyone started bullying and mocking them, doing exactly what I thought you were trying to prevent people from doing to women. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stopping the KKK through hate speech and intimidation tactics is at least as bad as leaving them alone. Probably worse, in fact - now you've got five thousand people using hate speech and intimidation tactics instead of just fifty.
Maybe, just maybe it's my status as a minority that's giving a bias here, but no, a white supremacy group and protesters opposing racist ideology aren't the same thing. Injustice should be tackled head on, not ignored. Just because said injustice put on a pretty face doesn't make it any less reprehensible. In the example above, after the protesters did what they did, the Klan looked retarded afterwards, so yes, they did improve society. Yeah, the KKK has the right to demonstrate, but I'd argue that the protesters have the moral imperative to drown those fuckers out.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, what is bad about the KKK? Hopefully that's an easy question to answer: they are involved derogatory remarks, violence, and overall bullying against minority groups.
What was the crowd doing? Well, they were being derogatory, violent, and overall acting as bullies against a group much smaller than themselves.
So, uh. If the protestors had the moral imperative to stop the KKK, then other people have an equal moral imperative to stop the protestors. Because the protestors were doing literally every single thing that people hate the KKK for doing, but at a bigger scale. That's kind of like fighting terrorists by bombing the schools their kids go to. You're beating the enemy, but you're not beating the problem.
What was the crowd doing? Well, they were being derogatory, violent, and overall acting as bullies against a group much smaller than themselves.
So, uh. If the protestors had the moral imperative to stop the KKK, then other people have an equal moral imperative to stop the protestors. Because the protestors were doing literally every single thing that people hate the KKK for doing, but at a bigger scale. That's kind of like fighting terrorists by bombing the schools their kids go to. You're beating the enemy, but you're not beating the problem.
No actually the KKK has about a century of systematic racism, bigotry, racially motivated killings and lynching, cross burnings, violence, and inspiring fear among individuals and families. The protestors mooned them. Like literally showed their asses to them just a bunch of them. That's pretty much it. The protesters were doing every single thing people hate about the KKK? I'm sorry I must have missed the paragraph where the protesters hang a black man from a noose. Do you realize how fucking insulting that is, not just on a personal level?
Where are you getting the impression of them being derogatory, violent, and being bullies from? Were any of the KKK hurt or killed by this? Do you have context of this event that I don't?
Are you really fucking defending the KKK what is going on here. Unless you are trying to say that meeting injustice with any sort of aggression is wrong, which is equally hilariously incorrect and dependent on the situation to apply.
Where are you getting the impression of them being derogatory, violent, and being bullies from? Were any of the KKK hurt or killed by this? Do you have context of this event that I don't?
Are you really fucking defending the KKK what is going on here. Unless you are trying to say that meeting injustice with any sort of aggression is wrong, which is equally hilariously incorrect and dependent on the situation to apply.
TheNecromancer
3160
author=LockeZ
Well, what is bad about the KKK? Hopefully that's an easy question to answer: they are involved derogatory remarks, violence, and overall bullying against minority groups.
What was the crowd doing? Well, they were being derogatory, violent, and overall acting as bullies against a group much smaller than themselves.
So, uh. If the protestors had the moral imperative to stop the KKK, then other people have an equal moral imperative to stop the protestors. Because the protestors were doing literally every single thing that people hate the KKK for doing, but at a bigger scale. That's kind of like fighting terrorists by bombing the schools their kids go to. You're beating the enemy, but you're not beating the problem.
ugh, I don't normally get involved in these kinds of discussions and I already regret it but something about what your saying here sounds crazy. too much logic and not enough humanity.
the reason to protest the KKK is not "we don't want them to protest". the people protesting didn't react to just any group protesting. they reacted to the KKK protesting.
it's more about the history of extreme violence, I'd say. KKK may have been having a "peaceful protest" by definition, but their message is one of hate(in general, I don't think it's said what they were protesting in the OP example). the things they've done were evil and there is no place in a bright future for such people. wanting to be rid of evil people is not evil. killing them wouldn't be right, but mooning them and showing them that they are unwanted is hardly wrong.
Because the protestors were doing literally every single thing that people hate the KKK for doing
the protestors did not set fire to, blow up, or hang members of the KKK. or did they and I'm not aware?
the mood of society has to be oppressive to these groups or they will flurish. the problem is solved with education and time. compare race relations now to 50+ years ago. things are moving in the right direction. that's the moral imperative...I think(if I understand the meaning of the word)
