These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Racist Tears Harvest. Yumyum for sure.

First post
Author
Azriel Geist
Pure Victory
#61 - 2013-07-31 01:21:29 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Nicely done! Keep up the good work! No place in EvE for people like this, nor indeed the world imo. Cool


Except racists run the world, they're just shrewd enough to keep it behind closed doors.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#62 - 2013-07-31 01:43:54 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

As for dealing with idiots thinking that having certain rights spelled out as especially important to protect imperils the unenumerated rights, well, we've got something for that too.
9th Amendment to the United States Constitution wrote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Whilst I generally agree with your position, I have to ask: Why are you citing the US Constitution? Sure, and it's a fine document, one I've been willing to die to uphold, but CCP isn't an American company.

Dunno how the Icelandics feel about Freedom of Speech (I suspect not terribly different than we do), but if you're going to cite Foundation Documents, you should probably be using theirs.

Anyway, carry on.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#63 - 2013-07-31 01:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
Starkiller Lothlorien wrote:
Where tears? Racist got hit with modstick. "Dear Dimbulb, u bio blow chunks, see, we wipe like back passage after shart. Bio allgone byebye now. Try again noob" or words to same effect, for sure.
Racist plenty agitated then, locked. "Ohnoes liberal agenda gag me! Call me a waaahmbulance!", anyone can see.

Btb, free speech chitchat fine and dandy, fill your boots, but irrelevant. This Eve. This just pvp. Me vs racist. I use legal method to gank untanked bio. I win. My mum get bunting out, call neighbours round, soup for everyone. Chickachickow, like say in Ferris Bueller Day Off.

Apologies to real Hicksville. No idea real. Was using general usage term not reference to actual place. No wish to offend Hicksville residents. Apart from Hicksville racists. No mind if offend them.

By the way:
Keep posting. I find your posts immensely entertaining. 07
Cool
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#64 - 2013-07-31 02:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Plastic Psycho wrote:

Whilst I generally agree with your position, I have to ask: Why are you citing the US Constitution? Sure, and it's a fine document, one I've been willing to die to uphold, but CCP isn't an American company.

Dunno how the Icelandics feel about Freedom of Speech (I suspect not terribly different than we do), but if you're going to cite Foundation Documents, you should probably be using theirs.

Anyway, carry on.


Chopper Rollins was saying that Australia's stance in not having rights enumerated anywhere was because they don't trust the legislature (to ...not... uphold their rights? I'm not super clear on the logic.)

The implication was that having the enumerated right (as the US does) somehow protects that right (or other rights) less well than not having the right enumerated.
... Logic is the answer to the first problem (writing down "You have the right to X" cannot protect the right to X less well than not writing down "You have the right to X")
The 9th Amendment is the answer (in the US) of the problem of enumerating rights potentially making it easier to infringe on unenumerated rights.


CCP is a private entity, and can do whatever the hell they want with their soapboxes, as "what they do with their soapboxes" itself constitutes speach.

Iceland's Constitution Section 7, Article 73 is their protection of the right to Freedom of Expression, but it seems kind of wishy-washy in comparison.

'MERICA! wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Icelandic Constitution wrote:
Article 73
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and belief.

Everyone shall be free to express his thoughts, but shall also be liable to answer for them in court. The law may never provide for censorship or other similar limitations to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the State, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others, if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#65 - 2013-07-31 02:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
Actually, the Icelandic version is fairly strong, albeit less easy to understand.

It *does* open a door for public intrusion in the form of 'morals' - Morals are basically popular opinion, when you get right down to things - but it also opens a LOT of room for courts to 'adjust for windage.' The other explicit exceptions are similar to the US exceptions, but are stated up-front, rather than burried in legal precident.

Bottom line: Iceland is set-up more for consensus than for absolutes. In a small, not-terribly-populous country where access to government is relatively easy (no time/distance issues, like there were in the early US), their version probably works better. For them.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2013-07-31 02:13:49 UTC
Azriel Geist wrote:
Xen Solarus wrote:
Nicely done! Keep up the good work! No place in EvE for people like this, nor indeed the world imo. Cool


Except racists run the world, they're just shrewd enough to keep it behind closed doors.


To a certain extent.

I like being of mixed heritage, as it helps to see the undercurrent racism, especially "passing" as white can offer.

In my day you didn't learn a second language, you were forced to speak only English. My Swedish grandfather even banned "un-American" food, that grandma had to sneak in even spaghetti to my brother and uncle (great American melting pot wasn't exactly great), despite great-grandfather ONLY spoke Swedish. Probably the only Japanese-Swedish person in the world with a secret Italian grandmother!

Most racist state? Wisconsin. The *** could live there and be openly racist, and they're that way because the only people they see are their own (and let's not get into the Scandinavian ethnic rivalries -- more than Lutefisk is served at those socials). Glad I live in GA, because even down here the racism isn't THAT blatant, the Scot-Irish-English can at least get along. Try that with the Swedes/Norwegians and Finns. -_-

And why I'm not surprised it exists in EvE, especially the blatant racism in this game by players.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#67 - 2013-07-31 02:23:40 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Actually, the Icelandic version is fairly strong, albeit less easy to understand.

It *does* open a door for public intrusion in the form of 'morals' - Morals are basically popular opinion, when you get right down to things - but it also opens a LOT of room for courts to 'adjust for windage.' The other explicit exceptions are similar to the US exceptions, but are stated up-front, rather than burried in legal precident.

Bottom line: Iceland is set-up more for consensus than for absolutes. In a small, not-terribly-populous country where access to government is relatively easy (no time/distance issues, like there were in the early US), their version probably works better. For them.



I agree that it's strong. I'm just a fan of absolutes on some things. Free Speech is one of them.
And I agree that most of the same exceptions have been carved out, I think there's a difference between having to carve out exceptions to a rule and having them built into it.
How do you change the consensus opinion if the consensus can shut up the people trying to change it?

And the "protection of health or morals" exception seems especially dangerous.

But, as you say, it works for them.

And, of course, there is another Ziegler quote about trying to apply what works on one country to another:
“Half the faculty at Yale law describes the American presidential system as one of these country’s most dangerous exports, responsible for wreaking havoc on over 30 countries around the globe. It is a recipe for constitutional breakdown.”

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#68 - 2013-07-31 02:26:18 UTC
The OP sounds like a cocky cockney.

But right on Guvner.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#69 - 2013-07-31 02:39:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
RubyPorto wrote:

How do you change the consensus opinion if the consensus can shut up the people trying to change it?
To be honest, I think that's actually a pretty good idea, if you're trying to preserve your country's traditions and protect it from ill-advised social engineers. It doesn't prevent change, but it should put a pretty sharp brake on radical change and radical rates of change.

Almost all changes to social law happen after the population is already largely in favor of the change, anyway. By that point, there's no need to shut anyone up, because the majority already thinks that way. The way the Icelandics have it written, you're going to need to make your persuasions on a smaller, local level. By persuading individuals, rather than bringing mass pressure to bear. Much more stable.

I'll give you a couple examples: Roe v. Wade was dropped on the country before consensus had been achieved. The result has been a long-running slow-burning political and social insurrection. People have died from it - The change was forced too soon.
Alternatively; Gay marriage. Only once the tipping point, socially-speaking, was achieved did legislation start coming about. Sure, there's resistance, but it's accepted as a fact, or soon-to-be-fact, by all but the most reactionary. Consensus has been achieved.

In small countries, you can get away with this. Such loose wording certainly would be disaster here.
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#70 - 2013-07-31 02:42:49 UTC
They wont lock this until they figure out WTF the OP said, should take a week.
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2013-07-31 03:07:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


As for dealing with idiots thinking that having certain rights spelled out as especially important to protect imperils the unenumerated rights, well, we've got something for that too.
9th Amendment to the United States Constitution wrote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



CCP has the right ....


You're not in the United States, you're in a computer game. The owners of the game don't have the right to ban your hardware for being a jerk, they have the power. Your rights don't extend into that power.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#72 - 2013-07-31 03:31:53 UTC

Chopper Rollins was saying that Australia's stance in not having rights enumerated anywhere was because they don't trust the legislature (to ...not... uphold their rights? I'm not super clear on the logic.)



Just to clarify, we do not have it built into the Australian Constitution, but is covered under various anti-discrimination and vilification acts. Main part being "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group".

Basically, free to say what you want (all yanks are wankers Big smile ), just not incite anything beyond that.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#73 - 2013-07-31 03:44:58 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


As for dealing with idiots thinking that having certain rights spelled out as especially important to protect imperils the unenumerated rights, well, we've got something for that too.
9th Amendment to the United States Constitution wrote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



CCP has the right ....


You're not in the United States, you're in a computer game. The owners of the game don't have the right to ban your hardware for being a jerk, they have the power. Your rights don't extend into that power.



Potay-to, potah-to.
That's a distinction without a difference.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#74 - 2013-07-31 03:49:15 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:
You're not in the United States, you're in a computer game. The owners of the game don't have the right to ban your hardware for being a jerk, they have the power. Your rights don't extend into that power.



CCP does in fact have the right to deny you access to their soapbox for any reason they choose.
They have that right as enumerated in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (for their American branch), and in Article 73 of the Icelandic constitution.
They also have that right as it is enumerated in the EULA, the acceptance of which is required to connect your hardware to the game.

If they only had the power but not the right to ban people, they'd be mired in lawsuits.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2013-07-31 03:53:03 UTC
"They also have that right as it is enumerated in the EULA, the acceptance of which is required to connect your hardware to the game.

If they only had the power but not the right to ban people, they'd be mired in lawsuits."

The EULA is terms and conditions, not a list of rights. You agree to them.
Good luck with your lawsuit if and when CCP decides your right to free speech means nothing. There will be no sectarian agitators in this game.
I recommend you shoot a monument in-game and take some deep breaths.

Jeez, sidewalk lawyers, i'm outta this thread.


Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#76 - 2013-07-31 03:54:49 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:
Just to clarify, we do not have it built into the Australian Constitution, but is covered under various anti-discrimination and vilification acts. Main part being "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group".

Basically, free to say what you want (all yanks are wankers Big smile ), just not incite anything beyond that.



That appears to be the opposite of what that says. The quoted language seems to say (paraphrasing) "It is illegal to say anything in public that's likely to offend someone on the basis of their [protected status]"

Also, unlike an act of Parliament, a constitutional amendment cannot easily be altered or repealed.


If you don't trust your government, why would you want it to be easier to alter or repeal the enumeration of your rights?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#77 - 2013-07-31 03:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Chopper Rollins wrote:
"They also have that right as it is enumerated in the EULA, the acceptance of which is required to connect your hardware to the game.

If they only had the power but not the right to ban people, they'd be mired in lawsuits."

The EULA is terms and conditions, not a list of rights. You agree to them.
Good luck with your lawsuit if and when CCP decides your right to free speech means nothing. There will be no sectarian agitators in this game.
I recommend you shoot a monument in-game and take some deep breaths.

Jeez, sidewalk lawyers, i'm outta this thread.



Is it opposite day here?

Take a breath and try actually reading the words I've typed.

Here, I'll help. It's two lines above the part you skipped to:
RubyPorto wrote:
CCP does in fact have the right to deny you access to their soapbox for any reason they choose.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Cipher Deninard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-07-31 04:21:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cipher Deninard
So much facepalm in this thread.

I'm not sure which is worse, the racists or the people defending the racists right to be racist.
Honestly I'm not sure on the finer points, but discriminating against another human due to their colour of skin, sexual orientation or anything else should not be tolerated.

I know that technically speaking such things should be allowed under the freedom of speech thing, but honestly I do not want to live in a place where such things are legal and/or accepted. Personally I think freedom of speech is fine until it starts to cause harm to others (through racism, homophobia, whatever).

Feel free to debate the point, I haven't really sorted out my views on all of this issue yet and a good debate always helps me to work out where I stand :)
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#79 - 2013-07-31 04:56:43 UTC
Cipher Deninard wrote:
... defending the racists right to be racist.

If the worst people are protected, everyone is protected. Simple as that.

Of course, that doesn't apply to private entities, such as CCP.


To the OP: Massive troll attempt, successful. Well-played, Sir.
07
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#80 - 2013-07-31 05:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Cipher Deninard wrote:
So much facepalm in this thread.

I'm not sure which is worse, the racists or the people defending the racists right to be racist.
Honestly I'm not sure on the finer points, but discriminating against another human due to their colour of skin, sexual orientation or anything else should not be tolerated.


What about discriminating against them for their beliefs? What if those beliefs are, themselves, discriminatory?

Quote:
I know that technically speaking such things should be allowed under the freedom of speech thing, but honestly I do not want to live in a place where such things are legal and/or accepted. Personally I think freedom of speech is fine until it starts to cause harm to others (through racism, homophobia, whatever).

Feel free to debate the point, I haven't really sorted out my views on all of this issue yet and a good debate always helps me to work out where I stand :)



How do you define "harm to others"?
Can you censor someone for providing information on pornography? Some people believe that pornography is inherently harmful.*
What about Drugs? Clearly that information can be harmful.
What about contraception? Some people (including, for a time, the Federal Government) believe that information about contraception is harmful.**
Can you censor someone for saying something generally mean? If not, why are you censoring people for hurting some people's feelings but not others?


Ultimately, we live in a plural society (both in the US and the world as a whole). That means that when we come across an opinion with which we disagree, we rally and speak out against it, rather than try to silence it.

After all, opinions differ, and who are you to claim yours is the only right one?

Heinlein wrote:
How anybody expects a man to stay in business with every two-bit wowser in the country claiming a veto over what we can say and can't say and what we can show and what we can't show — it's enough to make you throw up. The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.


Benjamin Franklin wrote:
If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon