I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
Being barred from discriminating does not mean you are being discriminated against, and praise the Lord you do not represent the sum total of Christianity. I for one actually remember Luke 10:25-37 and Mark 12:17*, the words that came from Yeshua ben Yusuf's actual mouth. And I also have the intelligence to tell when somebody is making a freaking joke.
And to those who say "political correctness" is a bad thing, I answer, why is it such a horrible evil thing to avoid p*ssing people off when you can avoid it?
* For reference, that's the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
Because freedom of speech gives people the right to say things. Suggesting that people can't say X, is dangerous and fascist. It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Oh, really? "Freedom of speech", that's what you're going with?
I think we're in need of a refresher course here. Hit it, Munroe!
Alt text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but defending a position by citing free speech is kind of the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
So you don't believe in freedom of speech? And think an emotionally biased and questionable cartoon is a response? Like I said, check out Stephen Fry's thoughts on 'being offended': I agree with them...
Also, for the record, I'm not fussed if I come across as an a55hole... I'm hardly alone in that, and to be honest, I would rather be thought an a55hole for being honest about my opinion(s) than tolerated for saying what others want to hear... But as for your lack of tolerance for other people's opinions which differ from yours, you're just proving my point...
So, in other words, your only response to the argument is to attack the method by which the argument was made instead of addressing it. Got it. Also:
It's the narrow end of the wedge, because once someone has deemed that X is 'problematic', how soon until Y or Z are deemed thus?
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because X happens doesn't automatically mean that Y or Z will. You can tell somebody off for using racial or religious slurs and still be fine with them expressing their political views; it's not either/or.
You're not denying it. Got it.
No, I don't deny that I consider freedom of speech to include my right to tell other speakers what they can go do with their views and otherwise refuse to simply put up with them.
Why should I?
Are you offended by that?
The knife cuts both ways, pal.
And in regards to ghost-posting for a banned forum member? I did that once, so he could participate in a literary challenge, and requested feedback from the moderators on whether such was acceptable (and have yet to receive any in either direction).
Offended? Not at all. Amused/disappointed, actually, that you can't see the hypocrisy of it, but certainly not surprized or offended...
Once, is bad enough. He's banned from the forum, he doesn't get to participate in it. Period. That's what being banned means... If you have yet to receive any feedback from the moderators, then the thing to do would be to consider their lack of response as the only response forthcoming, and wait until permission is granted. Is it a trivial thing? In itself, yes, but it shows entitlement that you (both) feel the rules don't apply, and thus hypocrisy for posting something which carries the overtones of someone being banned/removed from the community for expressing an opinion which the narrative voice is trying to diminish. Equally, Free Speech doesn't apply to forums anyway, they're not public space, but privately hosted facilities: The host and their appointed representatives are within their right to dictate the behaviour of their guests. But we're not talking about Free Speech on forums, but the notion of one person respecting (or not) the right of another person to hold a different view and express it, without feeling the need to pass judgement upon it. When one uses one'/Free Speech to take another person's Free Speech, then that is not only dictatorial, but it is making the assumption that one's own perspective is of more value than the other's.
And once again, I am going to request that we agree to disagree and stop derailing the thread, because I'm not prepared to give time to an issue which will not be arbitrated, resolved or otherwise agreed upon.
I have no problem with directly addressing discrimination through the media, but the way Beyond did that, IMO, did more harm than good.
Yeah, there's a fine line between wanting equality and wanting special treatment, which is the core problem with the civil rights movement in the US. Far too many "minority" groups who want special treatment.
Presumes the majority groups haven't been getting special treatment, or conversely that minority groups have not been getting inferior treatment. It's not about wanting special treatment, it's about wanting the same treatment. And since the problem won't solve itself, why shouldn't there be an intervention to balance the scales?
And what form CAN an intervention take that will not constitute preferential treatment? Affirmative action was an utter train wreck. Racial hiring quotas are a disaster waiting to happen.
Realistically I don't think anything short of an act of God himself can. Why? because the people you are trying to force to "do the right thing" are actively trying to undermine your efforts.
Honestly you have to draw a line somewhere. If it's not criminal behavior, then don't bother trying to force people to not do it.
I'm sure this is exactly the reply @angrytarg was thinking of when they wrote their comment. It's so nice to see people like this exist, it's lovely to get a yard stick of social evolution in practice .
To be perfectly candid, I thought @sthe91 was trolling
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Closing this, as some people have resulted in personal attacks rather excessively.
Thank you for those who have attempted to remain constructive.
/Closed
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
Comments
Once, is bad enough. He's banned from the forum, he doesn't get to participate in it. Period. That's what being banned means... If you have yet to receive any feedback from the moderators, then the thing to do would be to consider their lack of response as the only response forthcoming, and wait until permission is granted. Is it a trivial thing? In itself, yes, but it shows entitlement that you (both) feel the rules don't apply, and thus hypocrisy for posting something which carries the overtones of someone being banned/removed from the community for expressing an opinion which the narrative voice is trying to diminish. Equally, Free Speech doesn't apply to forums anyway, they're not public space, but privately hosted facilities: The host and their appointed representatives are within their right to dictate the behaviour of their guests. But we're not talking about Free Speech on forums, but the notion of one person respecting (or not) the right of another person to hold a different view and express it, without feeling the need to pass judgement upon it. When one uses one'/Free Speech to take another person's Free Speech, then that is not only dictatorial, but it is making the assumption that one's own perspective is of more value than the other's.
And once again, I am going to request that we agree to disagree and stop derailing the thread, because I'm not prepared to give time to an issue which will not be arbitrated, resolved or otherwise agreed upon.
Realistically I don't think anything short of an act of God himself can. Why? because the people you are trying to force to "do the right thing" are actively trying to undermine your efforts.
Honestly you have to draw a line somewhere. If it's not criminal behavior, then don't bother trying to force people to not do it.
My character Tsin'xing
To be perfectly candid, I thought @sthe91 was trolling
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Thank you for those who have attempted to remain constructive.
/Closed
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider