It seems pretty dubious to me to suppose that chess.com should be in the business of rendering judgments and meting out punishments for people's supposed speech-crimes. After all, that's neither chess.com's purpose, nor its area of expertise. Furthermore, why should your (and your friends') particular sensibilties serve as the standard that chess.com ought to be applying to everyone else? Okay, so your opponent voiced an unpopular, idiotic opinion, and you're offended by it. And sure, it can feel pretty good to indulge in a bit of self-righteous indignation. But at the end of the day, all you're reacting to is someone's opinion -- nothing more and nothing less. And, as the American adage goes, everyone has one...
Complaints?
Sort:
We should merge this thread with the "you should be banned if you disable chat" thread, just to maximize confusion.
Don't get so bent out of shape over the shape of some pixels on your screen from an anonymous stranger, there are more important things out there.
Anyway, you don't have the right to not be offended.
You were offended. So what. Just say "Ok, I was offended", and move on.
nameno1had wrote:
It's sad when people think the U.S. constitution was written to garuantee the equally opportunity to do wicked and good. It was obviously written to deny any attempt of any tyrant or entity that would take away our rights to be able to do what is right.
Is freedom of religion supposed to give a satanist the right to murder a human baby on an alter as a sacrifice to his god?
Was freedom of expression intended to give people a platform to put ideas in place to in turn try to undermine the freedom of expression itself?
For those of you who already knew this, please forgive my rhetoric, I hope some of you can maybe now see the forest and the trees.
RetGuvvie98 and Defacto also made some very good points. Exercising freedom of speech in a similar manner around the people who protect and serve could result in you served some trumped up charges, and those charges will be protected by a judge. Chess.com does have its own form of judge, jury, and executioners for related matters. Are we not censored in our conversations should they become too heated with profanity? I've read that naming and shaming specific members in the forums is frowned upon; therefore it seems one cannot make a statement like: "This guy should be killed because he's a worthless, egotisitical, fiend who causes many potential customers to never go beyond being potentials." However if we apply the comment to the person's entire race does this suddenly make it proper and acceptable?
Sod off with all that political correctness of yours. One speak rubbish? That's the price for freedom. You cannot be partially free, so all those non-absoulte freedoms of speech is just a nice name for a totalitarian censorship.
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Both are murder, and either can happen with or without being a "hate crime". Funny how you tell us it's subjective then go on to make an apparently objective (and stupid) declaration about it.
TheGrobe wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Both are murder, and either can happen with or without being a "hate crime". Funny how you tell us it's subjective then go on to make an apparently objective (and stupid) declaration about it.
Yeah, you're in the Big House now and TheGrobe = Romper Stomper.
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Are you 'geek's little brother?
Haven't heard such nonsense since his departure.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
It's sad when people think the U.S. constitution was written to garuantee the equally opportunity to do wicked and good. It was obviously written to deny any attempt of any tyrant or entity that would take away our rights to be able to do what is right.
Is freedom of religion supposed to give a satanist the right to murder a human baby on an alter as a sacrifice to his god?
Was freedom of expression intended to give people a platform to put ideas in place to in turn try to undermine the freedom of expression itself?
For those of you who already knew this, please forgive my rhetoric, I hope some of you can maybe now see the forest and the trees.
RetGuvvie98 and Defacto also made some very good points. Exercising freedom of speech in a similar manner around the people who protect and serve could result in you served some trumped up charges, and those charges will be protected by a judge. Chess.com does have its own form of judge, jury, and executioners for related matters. Are we not censored in our conversations should they become too heated with profanity? I've read that naming and shaming specific members in the forums is frowned upon; therefore it seems one cannot make a statement like: "This guy should be killed because he's a worthless, egotisitical, fiend who causes many potential customers to never go beyond being potentials." However if we apply the comment to the person's entire race does this suddenly make it proper and acceptable.
I have already had some runs in with mods and admins on another site. I am well aware of the potential double standards. As far as a guy who steals material or immaterial things from you, his punishment should be different than a murderer of people, simply on the basis of thinking that he is better than them. The people who harass people on line and abuse power to steal peoples opportunities, should just be beaten severely and as each opportunity they seek is within reach, it should be cruelly taken from them.
I might be thought of as being arrogant and self righteous, but I have a mind set that I tend to think many would find agreeable. For instance, if you neglected your dog to the point that you let its chain become embedded in its skin, I would punish you a bit differently that the law currently prescribes. I would have you tightly chained in a public square and left there to starve and complain while people passing, who are agitated by your cries for help, threw rocks, spit and scoffed at you. This would go on until the collar embedded into your skin. Then I would set you free. I am no less vigilante when its human to human crime.
Regardless of what we think, we should still find away to use discretion and yet express our thoughts, inspite of who we might tick off. The few things that will always help me to hold my head high are the fact that , when someone steals from me, they are only trying to deny what I am, but I still will be what I am. Further more, almost any heinous and lowdown thing that might happen to me here, I will garauntee you will never happen to me in a face to face setting, or if someone would be foolhearty enough to try me otherwise, they better bring their gun.
TheGrobe wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Both are murder, and either can happen with or without being a "hate crime". Funny how you tell us it's subjective then go on to make an apparently objective (and stupid) declaration about it.
I think famous footwear is running a sale...
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Part of the problem in the US is how extreme we have gotten with things like this. If i as a white man march around yelling "white power" im labeled a racist. But let a black or mexican, or asian do the same thing and they are showing ethnic pride.
We were discussing what we would do if one of us hit the lottery. Just to see the reactions i said i would start the United Caucasion College Fund" and WET (white entertainment television). You would have thought i had slapped someones momma. A co workers asked me how i could be so "racist"
I said well there is BET so what is the difference? And there is the United Negro College Fund, so again what is the difference?
Now i understand some will take this as i am a racist, and while that is not true, that is something you will have to come to terms with on your own.
GB2
I can scream that I'm not an idiot all I want.
It's just too bad that that doesn't make it so.
Jan 20, 2012
0
#56
@UratedGamesOnly
it's hard to stomach such bullshit arguments considering our (don't be fooled by my george's cross) racial history. listen whitey. you should go back to europe where you came from. i'm not calling you a racist, but i am calling what you've said overtly stupid.
UnratedGamesOnly wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Part of the problem in the US is how extreme we have gotten with things like this. If i as a white man march around yelling "white power" im labeled a racist. But let a black or mexican, or asian do the same thing and they are showing ethnic pride.
We were discussing what we would do if one of us hit the lottery. Just to see the reactions i said i would start the United Caucasion College Fund" and WET (white entertainment television). You would have thought i had slapped someones momma. A co workers asked me how i could be so "racist"
I said well there is BET so what is the difference? And there is the United Negro College Fund, so again what is the difference?
Now i understand some will take this as i am a racist, and while that is not true, that is something you will have to come to terms with on your own.
GB2
On some level I see the point you are trying to make. There shouldn't be double standards. On the other hand, what was your motive for bringing it up? Did the UNCF turn you down for a student loan?
Another important fact that you seem to be missing is that, from their inceptions, there always was a caucasian college fund and white entertainment television. They needed names for the new organizations, that not only set them apart from their contemporaries, but to aptly name them for what they are.If you had been somehow, directly wronged, by either of the above named african-american orginizations, then I could see your "need" to gripe.
I will admit that I have noticed that there are some angry african-american descendants of slaves, that seem to me to carry a chip on their shoulder and caucasian americans who feel that, by certain parts of the governmental system, that those african americans have been overly compensated for their trouble. The bottom line is that in general, being so petty over things like this only serves to help keep racial hatred stirred.
Can't you just let it go and chalk it up more to the fact that we are all dealt a different hand in life? If you really want to call your effort humanitarian and right the past wrongs. Try starting in making everything fair for everyone instead. Once you realize the futiliy of such a venture, maybe then you'll realize the futility of complaining about what you perceive to be a gross double standard.
UnratedGamesOnly wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Part of the problem in the US is how extreme we have gotten with things like this. If i as a white man march around yelling "white power" im labeled a racist. But let a black or mexican, or asian do the same thing and they are showing ethnic pride.
We were discussing what we would do if one of us hit the lottery. Just to see the reactions i said i would start the United Caucasion College Fund" and WET (white entertainment television). You would have thought i had slapped someones momma. A co workers asked me how i could be so "racist"
I said well there is BET so what is the difference? And there is the United Negro College Fund, so again what is the difference?
Now i understand some will take this as i am a racist, and while that is not true, that is something you will have to come to terms with on your own.
GB2
Some will agree the difference here is due to the fact that many of the circumstances under which black people live to this day is a direct result of more than a couple centuries worth of slavery and oppression. Furthermore some people's inherited wealth is also related to this fact; not a result of the hard work of their forefathers. I should point out that the duration of the oppression was far greater than more than a couple hundred years.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
UnratedGamesOnly wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
The definition of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are subjective.
If a Black man kills a white man in the USA, it's a murder.
If a white man kills a black man in the USA, it's a hate crime.
Go figure.
Part of the problem in the US is how extreme we have gotten with things like this. If i as a white man march around yelling "white power" im labeled a racist. But let a black or mexican, or asian do the same thing and they are showing ethnic pride.
We were discussing what we would do if one of us hit the lottery. Just to see the reactions i said i would start the United Caucasion College Fund" and WET (white entertainment television). You would have thought i had slapped someones momma. A co workers asked me how i could be so "racist"
I said well there is BET so what is the difference? And there is the United Negro College Fund, so again what is the difference?
Now i understand some will take this as i am a racist, and while that is not true, that is something you will have to come to terms with on your own.
GB2
Some will agree the difference here is due to the fact that many of the circumstances under which black people live to this day is a direct result of more than a couple centuries worth of slavery and oppression. Furthermore some people's inherited wealth is also related to this fact; not a result of the hard work of their forefathers. I should point out that the duration of the oppression was far greater than more than a couple hundred years.
I think it would be fair to say, that there have been other communities, of which American citizens have descended, that were oppressed with slavery, abuse and financial destitution. I know this full well as members of both sides of my family in the 1600 and 1700's in particular, chose to flee from the countries they were from. They had to leave everything behind in order to get here. They didn't have much, so it wasn't a hard choice.
So, though my heart goes out to those who were oppressed by slavery, both while in Africa by their own people, and then , when they were sold to the new world's slave owners, at least they got a chance to live in the greatest country on Earth, after the fact. So they will get some sympathy from me, but it has it's limits. There have been many peoples who have been enslaved for hundreds of years at a time. Sadly, there are some who are oppressed today and would love to have the chances that many Americans have, equally as sad are some of those same Americans, who complain about the fact that life wasn't fair to them and they didn't get a fair hand dealt to them. That is a human problem, not a problem of any one race in particular.
Jebcc-
By law, the queen owns all of British land and by her eternal grace, allows her subjects to live there. The word "king" or "queen" seems a bit nuts to us American's, as it did to the Romans when they heard the word after enduring the tyrannical Tarquinians.
Still, I've got a few close friends who are British and no matter how much I argue agaist her, they really love their queen. Anyways, she doesn't do much but stand as an icon/celebrity of the country, as the House of Parliament (which is elected) makes the laws and real decisions. You say in America that we've got the choice to tell our leaders to screw off- I wish that was in fact true. Our government doesn't represent the people in any way, and makes of mockery of us as they divide us into statistics like pieces of a pie- "who's going to get the blacks, who's going to get the crazy evangelicals, who's going to get the......"
I've been living in Moscow, RU for the past two years, and here, though they don't have a choice, at least the corruption is obvious to all, rather than deeply hidden and intricate, as in our system. For example, when United Russia barely won the majority in the Duma, by what many considered corrupted and unfair means, people took to the street in demonstration. I was at one of these protests, walking along a bridge over the Moscow River from Red Square to the venue, and there were thousands of police in riot gear, and better still, a hundred thousand protesters standing up for what they believe in. If we could do this in America, those stupid politicians who are ruining our country would head for the hills....unfortunately Americans are too law-abiding for that...