drummyfish {l Wrote}:A bit offtopic but here's a fun experience: from time to time there appear some kind of kiddo who wants to "troll", spam and starts dropping the N words and Nazi ideology around the chat, then sees no one gives a shit, gets bored and disconnects. You really don't need any censorship rules, the issue solves itself.
PeterX {l Wrote}:1.) Does "Difficulty level: Insane" really mean it would be difficult to deal with psychical ill people? I think it rather means that one must be insane to do that level?
PeterX {l Wrote}:2.) Is calling villains "insane" really bad? I mean people trying to rule the world are indeed insane, aren't they?
Lyberta {l Wrote}:PeterX {l Wrote}:1.) Does "Difficulty level: Insane" really mean it would be difficult to deal with psychical ill people? I think it rather means that one must be insane to do that level?
Both implications are sanist because second implication means that attempting to play hard video games is a mental disorder of some sort.
Lyberta {l Wrote}:PeterX {l Wrote}:2.) Is calling villains "insane" really bad? I mean people trying to rule the world are indeed insane, aren't they?
No.
PeterX {l Wrote}:OK, I see your point. But how would you classify a dictator who starts war and wants to rule the world? I imagine the term "insane" but what would be a better term? "Evil"? But that ignores the fact that world domination is impossible. Perhaps "Illusionary"?
Lyberta {l Wrote}:PeterX {l Wrote}:1.) Does "Difficulty level: Insane" really mean it would be difficult to deal with psychical ill people? I think it rather means that one must be insane to do that level?
Both implications are sanist because second implication means that attempting to play hard video games is a mental disorder of some sort.PeterX {l Wrote}:2.) Is calling villains "insane" really bad? I mean people trying to rule the world are indeed insane, aren't they?
No.
Does "Difficulty level: Insane" really mean it would be difficult to deal with psychical ill people? I think it rather means that one must be insane to do that level?
Is calling villains "insane" really bad?
I mean people trying to rule the world are indeed insane, aren't they?
Isn't the equation Insane = psychical ill wrong?
Can I suggest games to be added to the list?
I'm mentally ill myself, have spent many months in psychiatric hospital, I don't think this is socially harmful. Please stop this insanity!
I'm now finding it interesting to compare this strong emphasis on the usage of correct speech with another @Onpon4's articles: Actions Speak Louder than Words. I'm not saying the articles are directly contradicting themselves, just pointing out a potential bias, in a friendly way, of course.
But how would you classify a dictator who starts war and wants to rule the world?
I imagine the term "insane" but what would be a better term? "Evil"? But that ignores the fact that world domination is impossible. Perhaps "Illusionary"?
As to the second one about evil villains trying to rule the world, I guess yeah, they are insane, especially when they think they have actually succeeded.
onpon4 {l Wrote}:Just to make a note, I don't generally look at this forum, so writing publicly here wasn't exactly the best way to reach out to me. I'm surprised I even found it.
onpon4 {l Wrote}:But how would you classify a dictator who starts war and wants to rule the world?
I would call them imperialist, because that's what they are. I would also call them a militaristic dictator. Neither of these things have anything to do with their personality.
I can (more or less) agree with all you wrote except this one. Of course it has to do with their personality. For example they have an aggressive and dominant personality (I'm not saying pathologic).
onpon4 {l Wrote}:I can (more or less) agree with all you wrote except this one. Of course it has to do with their personality. For example they have an aggressive and dominant personality (I'm not saying pathologic).
I don't see any reason to assume that. The only requirement to being a dictator is a combination of luck and the skills required to run a dictatorship (which can be learned by anyone). I seriously doubt that the entirety of the Kim dynasty consists of people with the same personality type.
drummyfish {l Wrote}:Anyway, if you want to continue anyway, you may be interested in Xonotic/Nexuiz, the taunt voice commands include words like "retard" and "pussy" (https://gitlab.com/xonotic/xonotic-data ... ssues/1171),
plus the chat on most servers is 100% uncensored and it's one of the last places on the internet where you can freely discuss anything from Eugenics, through Holocaust denial to child pornography. It's one of the reasons I love to play that game.
EDIT: I've added a comment to my game to hopefully make it to this list.
OK. I've now thought about an alternative interpretation of the insane difficulty: it is so difficult it will make you insane. Would this interpretation be considered harmful?
Is the word "insane" itself just apriori considered harmful, or just some contexts in which it is used? Do you think it should be replaced by another word X, and if so, won't the word X just replace the old word even with the pejorative meaning?
TBH I think this is a pretty masturbatory game in which people try to find Newspeak-kind-of solutions to an issue they arbitrarily create, for various reasons, when the best solution is to simply not create the issue.
onpon4 {l Wrote}:Regarding difficulty levels, there are all sorts of terms that can be used that are better than "Insane". Some examples include "Very Hard", "Nightmare", "Hellscape", "Impossible", "Unreasonable", and "Absurd".
drummyfish {l Wrote}:Language is not just a tool of communication, but a tool of thinking, and your efforts on language censorship are not only trying to ban certain ways of thinking in a very 1984 way, on a sole basis of a mere possibility of offending someone.
As you say you should not use a word unless you're absolutely certain it won't hurt someone, you're eventually going to end up not being able to talk at all.
What about criticizing someone?
onpon4 {l Wrote}:We're talking about media here, not people. And the concern isn't that it'll offend someone, it's that it will propagate harmful attitudes. That's why I call it social harm, not emotional harm.
imagine there emerges a new minority rights group of people who are offended by criticism (not racist or sanist, just any criticism) and demand criticism be banned and all words resembling criticism along with it.
I personally think harming emotionally should be forbidden to some extent, too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest