If use of racist and homophobic slurs is 'gaming culture' then there is problem with gaming culture. I don't really see how that kind of language is something that needs protecting.
I think there is something wrong with a culture that feels the need to supress what is effectively amateur comedy going on within small groups.
Targeted harassment sure, that's not something to just blindly protect but as a homosexual, i see more harm in trying to police jimmy calling his friends faggots playing CoD than I see in allowing people to speak their minds.
Until someone can posit a great explanation for why its funny for me to call my friends faggots when they have kids and I don't and why that is in the end bad for society as a whole, I don't buy the argument we need to be policing speech along these lines.
Your statements don't seem to line up with each other, so I'm a bit confused as to what side you're arguing for. However, assuming you are defending the use of homophobic or racial slurs as "amateur comedy" then I have to disagree. There is absolutely zero reason to defend it. There's no important discourse being suppressed by encouraging people not to use these words, and as a society there is a lot to lose by allowing antagonistic language to become common vernacular.
Just because something doesn't offend you specifically (even if you are part of the group something offensive is being said about) doesn't mean it isn't offending anyone.
It's very common in countries like the US, for you to have a lot of rights, but their coverage always ends where others' rights begin. You cannot infringe on someone else's rights, and free speech does not cover hate speech. Hateful or derogatory speech has a significant negative impact on the mental and emotional well-being of a lot of people, and suggesting that it shouldn't just because it doesn't affect you is not a valid reason to not try to educate Jimmy on how not to be insensitive.
> Just because something doesn't offend you specifically (even if you are part of the group something offensive is being said about) doesn't mean it isn't offending anyone.
I couldn't care less if someone is offended. This wasn't a serious problem before the internet and with it is even less of an issue because it's just on the computer or your iphone.
Just turn it off, there, problem solved.
> It's very common in countries like the US, for you to have a lot of rights, but their coverage always ends where others' rights begin.
Yes, you don't have a right to not be offended. That is insane.
> and free speech does not cover hate speech
Where in the bill of rights is this covered? Or even the federalist papers?
It’s more that you shouldn’t use that word in the first place — it doesn’t matter if your friends are gay or not; the fact it’s a hateful insult that tells gay men they are lesser is enough. Imagine the young little gay kid who hears “f\t” screamed 20 times an hour — how will that make him feel for the rest of his life? Are you just cementing in his head that it’s wrong to be gay?
I hate to say it, but the days of absolute freedom of speech may be over. Everything these days is done through a commercial platform, and we’re now saying those platforms have editorial responsibility to monitor that speech (outside of any government mandate so it doesn’t fall afoul of 1st amendment).
> it doesn’t matter if your friends are gay or not; the fact it’s a hateful insult that tells gay men they are lesser is enough.
I didn't say that, you said that! Why would you think gay people are lessor to straight men?
> Imagine the young little gay kid who hears “f\t” screamed 20 times an hour
I would ask why a little boy identifies as gay in the first place, a bit young to be making such a big life decision.
> how will that make him feel for the rest of his life?
You tell me, I'm asking for some empirical evidence to stop doing something humans have done for centuries.
> Are you just cementing in his head that it’s wrong to be gay?
Why is it wrong to be gay?
Also you take on free speech is just simply wrong, these tech companies can be easily classified as natural monopolies like bell telecom was.
It's the same problem of the scaling increase of value with every customer but on a whole other level, this is not just a small collection of totally private companies.
You would have to be living under a rock to think google is just a little private company with no strong relationships with the US government.
> I would ask why a little boy identifies as gay in the first place, a bit young to be making such a big life decision.
It’s not about the little boy who identifies as gay in the moment; it’s about the little boy who realizes he is gay later on, and who has already internalized the message “it is wrong to be gay and people will make fun of you for it.”
And it’s not just gay people; this can apply to anyone who is considered “lesser”. The slurs are hurtful; and should be avoided out of empathy for your fellow humans rather than because the government said so.
But naturally there are a bunch of unempathetic edgelords who have to defy authority. So we are where we are.
Who’s the “we’re”? I don’t agree with YouTube banning Alex Jones and numerous gun channels. I’ll probably cancel my YouTube red subscription over it.
25 years ago you would find the KKK show on NYC public access cable. A round table of guys in hoods, with an AK-47 table piece, talking about African Jews. That was there due to governments freedom of speech protections. Government is now turning a blind eye while corporate media monopolies get away with censorship.
> 25 years ago you would find the KKK show on NYC public access cable. A round table of guys in hoods, with an AK-47 table piece, talking about African Jews.
If I were the FCC, I'd be shutting down those guys.
> If I were the FCC, I’d be shutting down YouTube.
Why? I get why public access would have a mandate to allow people with unpopular (imo hateful) opinions on the air, but not YouTube.
I was under the impression, they're a private network and under no obligation to allow you to post content they don't like. They are free to change their ToS at anytime and ban who they choose, right?
Their data is carried over the same right of ways as cable TV. It’d be like the power company refusing to sell you electricity because you manufacture legal firearms, or the phone company censoring your conversations.
Probably the reason why Google split into so many companies, so they can insulate themselves when pulling shit like this. A network provider separate from a content provider, when in reality it’s the same.
It stops being "amateur comedy" when it starts directly interfering with other people against their will.
If I go to a comedy show, I accept that I might get offended; that's on me. The power dynamic when I go to work, where I am expected to work with my team in order to get compensated, is massively different.
Nobody is making claims about "policing" (whatever that means in context). I don't care about words impact on "society as a whole" as some abstract concept. Society as a whole is comprised of people, and starts with the people around you upon whom you have the most direct impact. If you knew you worked with (or played a game of CoD with) a gay person, or a black person, how would you feel about using those words? That's why it's "bad for society as a whole"--because it's bad for the people right next to you.
Targeted harassment sure, that's not something to just blindly protect but as a homosexual, i see more harm in trying to police jimmy calling his friends faggots playing CoD than I see in allowing people to speak their minds.
Until someone can posit a great explanation for why its funny for me to call my friends faggots when they have kids and I don't and why that is in the end bad for society as a whole, I don't buy the argument we need to be policing speech along these lines.