07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
4) The following are not tolerated on public channels:
* hate speech
* racial slurs
* unwarranted hostility toward newbies

Long live self censorship!

From Wikipedia:
Quote
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

So no more stupid blonde jokes, no more calling someone an old fart, no more jokes about french people, no more picking on people with 'language problems', no more comments about someone acting gay, no more degrading language about neo-nazis (can't degrade an ideology), no more jokes about midgets, and most of all, no more jokes about stupid people (which is roughly half the population).
07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Scandum, I think the point of that item is exceedingly clear…

Naturally, in practice 'no hate speech' means that you can say whatever you want, as long as whoever wields the stick isn't offended by it. It's as clear as the Swastika's on Stormfront about what is acceptable and what is not, and it sickens me equally.
07 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It's as clear as the Swastika's on Stormfront about what is acceptable and what is not, and it sickens me equally.


Your effort to troll through the maximum possible irony is cute, but pointless.

I suggest you actually participate in intermud so that you can join
this discussion as a stakeholder with a first hand understanding of
the process you're criticizing.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I suggest you actually participate in intermud so that you can join
this discussion as a stakeholder with a first hand understanding of
the process you're criticizing.

And get belligerent emails each time one of my players chats 'sieg heil' and some random Jew on another mud has a hissy fit about it?

No thanks. I'm sure it works for people who like the muslims all have their asses pointed in the same direction when they pray. I on the other hand appreciate freedom of speech and am not the least bit threatened by people with different opinions.
07 Apr, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
And get belligerent emails each time one of my players chats 'sieg heil' and some random Jew on another mud has a hissy fit about it?


Welcome to the real world. While I happen to agree that this generation has gotten incredibly thin-skinned, that's how the world works today. The old phrase "the squeaky wheel gets the greasing" still applies.

Scandum said:
No thanks. I'm sure it works for people who like the muslims all have their asses pointed in the same direction when they pray. I on the other hand appreciate freedom of speech and am not the least bit threatened by people with different opinions.


Maybe, maybe not. Judging from that very sentence, you seem to have a problem with people who believe differently than you. Perhaps that isn't the same as being threatened by it, but most of the time, a defensive statement like that points to some underlying fear.

It's a shame that our society has come to the point where such guidelines need to be spelled out. The practical meaning of them is "Don't be an ass", but that isn't good enough for people today, since many of us have lost the ability to tell when we're actually being stupid, or when what we're saying is obviously bothering someone. Oh well.
07 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
And get belligerent emails each time one of my players chats 'sieg heil' and some random Jew on another mud has a hissy fit about it?


There's a channel called ifree where you can spew your filth.
Your fear of emails is not an excuse.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
07 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
The practical meaning of them is "Don't be an ass", but that isn't good enough for people today

Indeed. :sigh:
07 Apr, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
The practical meaning of them is "Don't be an ass", but that isn't good enough for people today, since many of us have lost the ability to tell when we're actually being stupid, or when what we're saying is obviously bothering someone. Oh well.


Sadly, that's precisely why these had to be drawn up. IMC2 had gone for a rather long time with no form of formal guidelines/rules. Until one belligerent moron couldn't drop something absurd and leave it off the network when asked. Apparently the common sense rule only applies if it's actually documented somewhere.
07 Apr, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
quixadhal said:
The practical meaning of them is "Don't be an ass", but that isn't good enough for people today

Indeed. :sigh:


Chivalry is dead! Bye bye Curteous behavior!
07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Scandum said:
I'm sure it works for people who like the muslims all have their asses pointed in the same direction when they pray. I on the other hand appreciate freedom of speech and am not the least bit threatened by people with different opinions.

Maybe, maybe not. Judging from that very sentence, you seem to have a problem with people who believe differently than you. Perhaps that isn't the same as being threatened by it, but most of the time, a defensive statement like that points to some underlying fear.

I have a problem with people who have a problem with the fact that I believe differently than them. It's the ancient dilemma, ought one be tolerant toward intolerance? Like you can't have a tolerant society by being tolerant toward intolerance, you can't have a free society without being intolerant toward those who oppose freedom. The USA is heading down a slippery slope and I think people will just shrug helplessly when the first person is jailed for speaking their mind.
07 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
I have a problem with people who have a problem with the fact that I believe differently than them. It's the ancient dilemma, ought one be tolerant toward intolerance? Like you can't have a tolerant society by being tolerant toward intolerance, you can't have a free society without being intolerant toward those who oppose freedom. The USA is heading down a slippery slope and I think people will just shrug helplessly when the first person is jailed for speaking their mind.


This is a lot of offtopic rhetoric for someone who's not even using the
network in question. Try it first and see if it suits you, THEN if it DOESN'T,
it's appropriate to bitch about the world going to hell…if it's germane.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
07 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I find it ironic that most people who complain about free speech don't grasp that it has no relevance to a privately run organization. Free speech as argued only applies to the government.

But if people really want to crusade along this path, direct it toward places that have real and substantial consequences. Like for instance companies who fire people for speaking their minds, which results in real and substantial financial harm to thousands of people every year. Getting banned from IMC2 is unlikely to result in anything approaching important.
07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
I find it ironic that most people who complain about free speech don't grasp that it has no relevance to a privately run organization. Free speech as argued only applies to the government.

I see nobody arguing that they're required by law to have speech codes, if they want to ban midgets that's their legal right.
07 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
I see nobody arguing that they're required by law to have speech codes, if they want to ban midgets that's their legal right.


No, but….

Scandum said:
No thanks. I'm sure it works for people who like the muslims all have their asses pointed in the same direction when they pray. I on the other hand appreciate freedom of speech and am not the least bit threatened by people with different opinions.


You were arguing freedom of speech. Which is what I was actually addressing. Not some crap about it being required by law.
07 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Not to stifle "free speech" or anything, but … Motion to limit debate to on-topic matters for people who actually have a stake in the outcome? Not sure why we need to talk about people disliking Muslims or wanting to ban midgets.
07 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Not to stifle "free speech" or anything, but … Motion to limit debate to on-topic matters for people who actually have a stake in the outcome?

Unless there's a hidden notion that I'm banned from ever joining IMC2 I don't quite see how I don't have a stake in the outcome.

A ban on "hate speech" is completely retarded and only serves as a blunt ax to enforce political correctness since in practice it is applied in a particularly biased way, where it's encouraged to call Tyche a stupid bigot but oh so wrong to call David Haley a dirty homo.
07 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
but oh so wrong to call David Haley a dirty homo.


He's not dirty.
07 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Unless there's a hidden notion that I'm banned from ever joining IMC2 I don't quite see how I don't have a stake in the outcome.

Don't be ridiculous, obviously you are not banned; you simply don't participate. At the moment, you're doing nothing more than pontificating on something you have hereto not participated in at all. Unless you have suddenly developed a serious interest in IMC due to actual participation on the network, I'm not entirely sure how you have any stake here.

If after participation and observing of actual conversation you find that some rule is being applied unfairly, you are certainly welcome to bring it up. For now, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to accomplish here other than make a network you don't participate in behave the way you want it to.
07 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Not sure why we need to talk about people disliking Muslims or wanting to ban midgets.


We don't. It wasn't my example, it was his. Responding to his asinine point requires using his argument in the response. Since he's clearly the only one opposed to their being rules, and he doesn't use the network, I'd say it's an entirely moot point and he's arguing for the sake of arguing.
07 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson, I wasn't really referring to your post :tongue: Yes, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm asking that we just ignore it.
0.0/107