Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
04-08-2021, 01:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:08 AM by Fearless Community. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
Conn
It does not matter if it was considered discriminatory. It is objectively not. Every topic, every idea, and every concept has multiple facets. It all boils down to the intent of the user, and whether or not that intent is discriminatory. Words are not discriminatory in and of themselves; people are. A word only has the meaning ascribed to it by the user, which can be good or bad.
That's like saying that the words "dinosaur" or "mammal" are discriminatory, because some people are bigoted against extinct reptiles or hairy animals. It is not the word that is the problem, it is the user.
Everyday speech in your world has become littered with these words. You've allowed bigots to influence you so much that you're unable to think for yourself and see that certain words are not bad by themselves. Words are not bad. They're only words. It is the intent of the speaker that is bad. Don't blame a rotten apple for being rotten, blame the mold that made it rotten. A word is just a sound, an idea, a concept. It holds no power on its own. It isn't the word that is the problem, it is the user. Take the word "murder," for example. Is the act of murder bad? It all depends on who you're asking. Ask the person who was murdered, they may say yes. Ask the person who murdered, they may say no, or they may not care. Ask the family of either, they'll most likely say yes. Words only have power that you ascribe to them. It is the intent of the speaker that is discriminatory. Words are not discriminatory in and of themselves; people are.
My intent with using the word "nazi" was never to discriminate, thus I am not discriminating. You are simply seeing discrimination where there is none, due to internalized bigotry. And although the self-important masses may cry and whine that my use of the word was discriminatory, it is not my responsibility to censor myself for their benefit. Let them confront me directly if they believe I have done wrong, and I shall explain to them that there is no bad in my heart. The intent of the speaker is not discriminatory. It is not my fault that the self-important masses are unable or unwilling to see this. They prefer to hide behind their hypocrisy of being politically correct and feign hurt over a word rather than confront me or question their own irrational prejudice.
Yes, the decision to enact the term was considered discriminatory by some people, and yes, there were poor outcomes as a result, but that doesn't change the objective meaning of the word, which remains true even if it was discriminatory. And no, I'm not fighting a losing battle because this is a lost cause; I'm fighting a losing battle because your lack of knowledge on the subject is severely hindering my attempt to teach you about it. Furthermore, your use of the term "petulant" is also a slur. It is a slur against those who display the emotion of petulance. It is an insult to be labelled with such behaviour. Even though there is no malice in your heart against me, you still have been discriminatory in your words and actions by thinking and acting in such a manner. So I am doing to you what you have done to me: display emotional petulance by accusing you of discrimination despite the absence of any genuine intent to do so.
It does not matter if it was considered discriminatory. It is objectively not. Every topic, every idea, and every concept has multiple facets. It all boils down to the intent of the user, and whether or not that intent is discriminatory. Words are not discriminatory in and of themselves; people are. A word only has the meaning ascribed to it by the user, which can be good or bad.
That's like saying that the words "dinosaur" or "mammal" are discriminatory, because some people are bigoted against extinct reptiles or hairy animals. It is not the word that is the problem, it is the user.
Everyday speech in your world has become littered with these words. You've allowed bigots to influence you so much that you're unable to think for yourself and see that certain words are not bad by themselves. Words are not bad. They're only words. It is the intent of the speaker that is bad. Don't blame a rotten apple for being rotten, blame the mold that made it rotten. A word is just a sound, an idea, a concept. It holds no power on its own. It isn't the word that is the problem, it is the user. Take the word "murder," for example. Is the act of murder bad? It all depends on who you're asking. Ask the person who was murdered, they may say yes. Ask the person who murdered, they may say no, or they may not care. Ask the family of either, they'll most likely say yes. Words only have power that you ascribe to them. It is the intent of the speaker that is discriminatory. Words are not discriminatory in and of themselves; people are.
My intent with using the word "nazi" was never to discriminate, thus I am not discriminating. You are simply seeing discrimination where there is none, due to internalized bigotry. And although the self-important masses may cry and whine that my use of the word was discriminatory, it is not my responsibility to censor myself for their benefit. Let them confront me directly if they believe I have done wrong, and I shall explain to them that there is no bad in my heart. The intent of the speaker is not discriminatory. It is not my fault that the self-important masses are unable or unwilling to see this. They prefer to hide behind their hypocrisy of being politically correct and feign hurt over a word rather than confront me or question their own irrational prejudice.
Yes, the decision to enact the term was considered discriminatory by some people, and yes, there were poor outcomes as a result, but that doesn't change the objective meaning of the word, which remains true even if it was discriminatory. And no, I'm not fighting a losing battle because this is a lost cause; I'm fighting a losing battle because your lack of knowledge on the subject is severely hindering my attempt to teach you about it. Furthermore, your use of the term "petulant" is also a slur. It is a slur against those who display the emotion of petulance. It is an insult to be labelled with such behaviour. Even though there is no malice in your heart against me, you still have been discriminatory in your words and actions by thinking and acting in such a manner. So I am doing to you what you have done to me: display emotional petulance by accusing you of discrimination despite the absence of any genuine intent to do so.