DoctorCookie wrote:my base got raided
your base got raided
DoctorCookie wrote:my base got raided
DonVelD wrote:I don't want to mix the threads but for example... Why the hell did you even bring up the skin color?? I may be missing something but that was unexpected and from my perspective - completely unrelated. Feel free to explain though. At the end moderating still comes down first to the rules and then the moderators opinion so why would that matter? I don't know if that post would deserve deleting but it wasn't a completely innocent post either.
Dictionary.com wrote:USAGE NOTE FOR BLACK
Black may be capitalized when used in reference to people, as a sign of respect. The case for capitalizing the initial letter ( Black ) is further supported by the fact that the names of many other ethnic groups and nationalities use initial capital letters, e.g., Hispanic.
Black as an adjective referring to a person or people is unlikely to cause negative reactions. As a noun, however, it does often offend. The use of the plural noun without an article is somewhat more accepted (home ownership among Blacks ); however, the plural noun with an article is more likely to offend (political issues affecting the Blacks ), and the singular noun is especially likely to offend (The small business proprietor is a Black ). Use the adjective instead: Black homeowners, Black voters, a Black business proprietor.
In the United States, there is a complex social history for words that name or describe the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants. A term that was once acceptable may now be offensive, and one that was once offensive may now be acceptable. Colored, for example, first used in colonial North America, was an appropriate referential term until the 1920s, when it was supplanted by Negro. Now colored is perceived not only as old-fashioned but offensive. It survives primarily in the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), an organization formed when the word was not considered derogatory. Describing someone as a person of color, however, is not usually offensive. That term, an inclusive one that can refer to anyone who is not white, is frequently used by members of the Black community. Using “of color” can emphasize commonalities in nonwhite lives. However, when referring to a group of people who are all Black, it is more appropriate to be specific. Failure to explicitly reference blackness when it is exclusively appropriate, generalizing “Black” to “of color,” can be a form of erasure.
Negro remained the overwhelming term of choice until the mid-1960s. That decade saw a burgeoning civil rights movement, which furthered a sense that Negro was contaminated by its long association with discrimination as well as its closeness to the disparaging and deeply offensive N-word. The emergence of the Black Power movement fostered the emergence of Black as a primary descriptive term, as in “Black pride.” By the mid-1970s Black had become common within and outside the Black community. But Negro has not entirely disappeared. It remains in the names of such organizations as the United Negro College Fund, people still refer to Negro spirituals, and some older Black people continue to identify with the term they have known since childhood. So Negro , while not offensive in established or historical contexts, is now looked upon in contemporary speech and writing as not only antiquated but highly likely to offend.
During the 1980s, many Americans sought to display pride in their immigrant origins. Linguistically, this brought about a brief period of short-form hyphenated designations, like Italo-Americans and Greco-Americans. The Black community also embraced the existing term Afro-American, a label that emphasized geographical or ethnic heritage over skin color. The related label, African American, also saw an increase in use among activists in the 1970s and 1980s. African American was even more widely adopted in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s after high-profile Black leaders advocated for it, arguing, as Jesse Jackson did, that the term brought “proper historical context” and had “cultural integrity.” While African American has not completely replaced Black in common parlance, it works both as a noun and as an adjective.
This shifting from term to term has not been smooth or linear, and periods of change like the late 1960s were often marked by confusion as to which term was appropriate. The 1967 groundbreaking film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, about a young interracial couple hoping that both sets of parents will accept their plans to marry, reflects the abundance of terminological choices available at the time. Various characters talk of a “colored girl,” a “colored man,” a “Negro,” and “Black people.” The N-word appears once, used disparagingly by one Black character to another. African American had not yet made it into the mix.
DonVelD wrote:And for the end - the "dishonest" post was highly opinionated.
VDZ wrote:DonVelD wrote:I don't want to mix the threads but for example... Why the hell did you even bring up the skin color?? I may be missing something but that was unexpected and from my perspective - completely unrelated. Feel free to explain though. At the end moderating still comes down first to the rules and then the moderators opinion so why would that matter? I don't know if that post would deserve deleting but it wasn't a completely innocent post either.
As you may or may not be aware, the video game industry has controversially been getting increasingly 'woke' in recent years, much to the dismay of a lot of white male gamers. Gaming follows a lot of social trends from the film industry, and the focus on representation is likely to carry over (complete with ridiculous extents like people complaining about a lack of racial diversity in a historical-inspired setting where historically everyone was white) and is already slowly starting to gain traction. As such, I expect it to be a matter of time until a significant number of people start considering games in which you can't play as a person of color to be 'racist', even if the lack of racial diversity makes perfect sense in the setting.
Possibly inspired by this trend, someone actually made the suggestion to be able to choose your skin color in Haven. Naturally, with Haven's playerbase, that's just going to lead to either a) people specifically PKing players of color; or b) people choosing specific skin colors to 'roleplay' as racist caricatures. Likely both.
(The struckthrough terms parody the euphemism treadmill where in English you need to re-learn every few years what the currently politically correct way is to refer to people with the kind of darker skin colors typically found in people of African descent, some of which just seem bizarre to me (like "African-American"; how are modern black Americans in any way "African"? They haven't been related to that continent in many generations, and it just sounds like they're 'not normal American' despite being born and raised there). Despite their ostensible wokeness their politically correct terms still degrade into pejoratives within years...)
EDIT: To illustrate what I mean, here's Dictionary.com's 'usage note' on the word 'Black' (I think I may have offended people by spelling it with a lowercase B...):Dictionary.com wrote:...
Take it with a grain of salt as I'm not sure it's up-to-date.DonVelD wrote:And for the end - the "dishonest" post was highly opinionated.
Which should be fine. Expressing an opinion is neither dishonest nor should it be moderated.
Zentetsuken wrote:my only last thought is that people should receive warnings for 'magicmanning' posts, as the community calls it. this is where you feel a guttural and impulsive need to add your opinion to threads even when you have no idea what you're talking about and its completely unnecessary. this type of behavior is most often seen in bug threads and "How do I" and its fucking annoying.
WowGain wrote:Zentetsuken wrote:my only last thought is that people should receive warnings for 'magicmanning' posts, as the community calls it. this is where you feel a guttural and impulsive need to add your opinion to threads even when you have no idea what you're talking about and its completely unnecessary. this type of behavior is most often seen in bug threads and "How do I" and its fucking annoying.
VDZ wrote:WowGain wrote:Zentetsuken wrote:my only last thought is that people should receive warnings for 'magicmanning' posts, as the community calls it. this is where you feel a guttural and impulsive need to add your opinion to threads even when you have no idea what you're talking about and its completely unnecessary. this type of behavior is most often seen in bug threads and "How do I" and its fucking annoying.
Imagine people expressing their opinions on a forum. The horror!
If I have no idea what I'm talking about it should be trivial to refute what I'm saying. Go do that rather than crying to mods to punish me for posting things you dislike.
DDDsDD999 wrote:VDZ wrote:Imagine people expressing their opinions on a forum. The horror!
If I have no idea what I'm talking about it should be trivial to refute what I'm saying. Go do that rather than crying to mods to punish me for posting things you dislike.
shut up, anime retard.
VDZ wrote:WowGain wrote:Zentetsuken wrote:my only last thought is that people should receive warnings for 'magicmanning' posts, as the community calls it. this is where you feel a guttural and impulsive need to add your opinion to threads even when you have no idea what you're talking about and its completely unnecessary. this type of behavior is most often seen in bug threads and "How do I" and its fucking annoying.
Imagine people expressing their opinions on a forum. The horror!
If I have no idea what I'm talking about it should be trivial to refute what I'm saying. Go do that rather than crying to mods to punish me for posting things you dislike.
Users browsing this forum: BLEX [Bot], Claude [Bot] and 2 guests