Does reports even do anything?
Comments
-
I think calling people homophobic slurs and telling them to commit suicide should be a perma ban.
0 -
Idk, I disagree I think actually. I strongly believe if someone is going to act childish that you should just ignore them because at the end of the day just because someone who you don't know online says something, it shouldn't influence you.
Either act childish back, or block them. In any case, I certainly don't think anyone should say these things either though, I just value freedom of speech.
In all likelihood, I am pretty sure that OP wanted these reactions and is trolling, or is someone who is young considering they're behavior and they're inability to or diswant of actually understanding arguments.
Although I suppose people not taking offense to random strangers would be a "perfect" world, and perfect things don't exist.
0 -
What kind of logic is that of "act childish back", so if someone calls me a slur, I should call them a slur back? lmao tf that's not how things work
1 -
Agreed, but I'm not sure how that's punished. Most likely, it's a temporary ban.
Freedom of speech does not exist on private platforms. You do not have the right to use a private speech platform however you want any more than you have the right to ######### the bed in a hotel room and then demand not to be kicked out.
As for an ideal world, it'd be one where people don't insult others because they lost in a video game, and the ones who were insulted aren't seen as the party at fault.
2 -
Its not logical, I never claimed it was.
EDIT
Also no, you shouldn't. If we are being realistic however, then it will happen at some point in your life. Be it you just got in a break up, and your friend is constantly hounding you, and then you just snap.
Or something more normalized like trash talk in a game.
Post edited by DerpyPlayz on0 -
Freedom of speech does not exist on private platforms. You do not have the right to use a private speech platform however you want any more than you have the right to [BAD WORD] the bed in a hotel room and then demand not to be kicked out.This argument is silly, because you are making speech and action seem as one. In that situation you are to leave because at that point you are trespassing if you stay, you can still say X, but it doesn't conform with reality.
As for an ideal world, it'd be one where people don't insult others because they lost in a video game, and the ones who were insulted aren't seen as the party at fault.What a fallacious implication, the receiving party was never at fault and I never said such things. It is however they're responsibility to not take drastic action in response however when the person in question fails to act civil.
This is why is not a good idea to bring a gun into situations when they're might be a chance to lower the tension. IE: You have to focus on your priories. If your priority is censoring everyone who acts egregious verbally, and its in a manner that doesn't directly correlate to an action as a threat (Such as yelling bomb in a theater, as that is directly exclaiming a threat in a sense that can not be logically rationed least the possible threat lead to death, and therefore incites panic, inciting harm) , then that doesn't help either. If someone believes X, stopping them from speaking they're mind isn't going to change anything. In fact, if the goal is to just upset people in the first place, you give the person what they want.
At the end of the day the person who is saying the most, and doing the most is just destroying they're own public outlook. This is why when you name certain people, even in modern day, you can correlate they're bad ideas and instantly recognize them as being a negative figure and therefore one to avoid. Just because someone isn't being censored, doesn't mean they aren't being punished.
This is not a cut and dry issue, its actually quite complicated, however there are things that both parties can do to bring about a peaceful resolution.
As said before, if someone says X thing online, you have time to rationalize what they are saying and therefore just ignore it. If people really just listened to random people at they're word just because, then I am not sure life would be how we know it to be as we know it currently.
EDIT
Of course though, this is a forum. So it actually makes sense for them to censor people when they say stuff like that with warnings, because of the outlook of the company. I stress, I don't disagree with the action taken here by the mods, and find it completely fair.
0 -
This argument is silly, because you are making speech and action seem as one. In that situation you are to leave because at that point you are trespassing if you stay, you can still say X, but it doesn't conform with reality.
You are "virtually trespassing" if you break the EULA.
This is not a cut and dry issue, its actually quite complicated, however there are things that both parties can do to bring about a peaceful resolution.
Yes, it is. The party slinging hateful rhetoric is at fault. It's that simple.
1 -
You are "virtually trespassing" if you break the EULA.That's now how this works, and that confused me with how you put it. XD
I know it is possible to win court cases regardless of the terms you agree with in specific cases, although you'd have to talk about that with a lawyer.
In any case, I already offered justification for the situation. So even if I assumed you are correct in stating this, you have just restated (rather poorly if I do say so myself, and I do) what I have already said but significantly more simplified and not accurate.
Yes, it is. The party slinging hateful rhetoric is at fault. It's that simple.You took this out of context, as the point I was trying to make while saying this went over your head. Oh well, not everyone is paying attention I suppose.
Anywho, I agree, I never disagreed with this for the third time. Which is exactly how I know you aren't paying attention.
Note: You haven't refuted anything I have said but indirectly agreed, as you've made points I already made.
0
