EVE Search - Is it reasonable for me to get offended?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Is it reasonable for me to get offended?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 15:54:00 - [31] Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2009 15:59:23 Originally by: dtyk The only thing the goons jihad implies hate against is untanked hulks. I fail to see the problem. (Yes, I have my eyes closed and my head buried in jelly) So as long as I keep the role-play in game, say I start a group called the * and hate only Minmatar, that would be OK? I'm playing devil's advocate here. Edit: BTW, my issue here isn't attacking untanked hulks. That's part of the game. The issue is using a campaign called "Jihad" to do it. So by using the same ruler to measure, I am well aware that there is ingame race hatred say, between Amarr and Minmatar. My question is would it be OK to create a campaign called "*" to RP this hatred. Why or why not?
Stephanie Jones	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:06:00 - [32] All you accomplish with making these threads is to get 1k Goons to fap wildly. Just ignore the noisy child and it will get bored.
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:07:00 - [33] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Zartanic Edited by: Zartanic on 01/10/2009 15:40:53 Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Hmmm. I wonder if I could come up with a campaign called "*" and go about RP'ing. No, I'm not a member. Just trying to see if there's a line drawn somewhere. If you look at all the backstory to the game, which I have only in passing, its clearly intended to reflect the worst aspects of society. So as long as there is RP or a pretence at it I doubt few things would be disallowed even if it relates to a group in real life. You would have to take it on a case by case basis though. Blanket censorship for the slightest deemed insult is the worst feature of modern times and is an extreme form of oppression in itself. In other words if people want to be prats in game then they should be allowed to be so. This also has nothing to do with RL threats or racial abuse which is taken seriously by CCP and players are banned for it. Using some kind of "" in-game campaign is just as bad as using the Jihad campaign. They're both mocks to real-life serious issues. They both imply hatred of a group or another. They're both violent. I fail to see the difference. I just don't find humor in either. But why is one allowed while the other isn't? Real life is not mocked enough in my opinion. Humour is a great leveller. One of the reasons the UK never went the * route is we found their gear and marching around funny long before we even new what they were about. We still do. Humour was used extensively in propaganda. It's hard to take something seriously when you laugh at them. The dangerous groups are those that take themselves too seriously. For me that includes earnest people who see offence in everything. Also the * is against a particular skin colour which is irrelevant to the game so likely not allowed, that is totally different to those against everyone in the game. There is a substantial difference unless you put everything deemed offensive in the same category which is wrong and another reason discretion, common sense and a proportionate response seems to fly out the window with some people when looking at potentially sensitive issues.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:18:00 - [34] Ok, but using your own example, ** isn't allowed. I doubt Goonswarm could start a campaign called "**" or "Third Reich" to role-play, while it seems perfectly OK to use Jihad. Again, don't misunderstand me. I find all these forms equally distasteful. They slightly offend me, but I get passed that knowing that these are children (at least mentally) that either have anger/hate/Schadenfreude/maturity issues or simply just "don't know any better".
xXThunder StruckXx	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:19:00 - [35] Mr Op, You claim to be upset by the use of the words Jihad and mujahadin. I note these are but two words and yet they have caused offence. I am sorry to hear this. I counted the use, by your good self, of almost 70 words from my language, ( English) and yet I was not offended by any one of them. Sort yourself out muppet !!!
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:24:00 - [36] I have a feeling goonery's days are numbered anyway. When the US economy tanks it'll be even harder to find people gullible enough to pay RL money to join a forum.
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:25:00 - [37] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Ok, but using your own example, ** isn't allowed. I doubt Goonswarm could start a campaign called "**" or "Third Reich" to role-play, while it seems perfectly OK to use Jihad. Again, don't misunderstand me. I find all these forms equally distasteful. They slightly offend me, but I get passed that knowing that these are children (at least mentally) that either have anger/hate/Schadenfreude/maturity issues or simply just "don't know any better". Jihad means 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' which has nothing to do with any particular political philosophy and includes positive motives. The word has been hijacked by extremists though. Here is an extract of its meaning. 'Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts. ' Source http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:25:00 - [38] I would suggest that if you play Eve to escape from real life you should take that up with a psychologist. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:28:00 - [39] Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2009 16:31:28 Originally by: Zartanic Jihad means 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' which has nothing to do with any particular political philosophy and includes positive motives. The word has been hijacked by extremists though. Here is an extract of its meaning. 'Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts. ' Source http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html Come on, we both know Goonswarm isn't using the word Jihad to mean 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' . We know they're using it with the definition that terrorists use it. By the same token, "Third Reich" only translates to "Third State", which could mean just about any third government. You have to be quite naive not to notice the parallels between the "Jihad campaign" and the fact that they're suiciding players while yelling religious and extremist rhetoric in local.
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:30:00 - [40] Personally I'd support any corp which believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://www.venganza.org/
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:31:00 - [41] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Zartanic Jihad means 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' which has nothing to do with any particular political philosophy and includes positive motives. The word has been hijacked by extremists though. Here is an extract of its meaning. 'Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts. ' Source http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html Come on, we both know Goonswarm isn't using the word Jihad to mean 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' . We know they're using it with the definition that terrorists use it. By the same token, "Third Reich" only translates to "Third State", which could mean just about any third government. Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money --
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:33:00 - [42] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Come on, we both know Goonswarm isn't using the word Jihad to mean 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' . We know they're using it with the definition that terrorists use it. Seriously, you're an idiot as big as an idiot can be. "Terrorists" Don't use the term Jihad to state war, they use it to state a Struggle (Some could say against oppression but whatever) _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Josefius Gallente JOKAS Industries Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:33:00 - [43] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Zartanic Jihad means 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' which has nothing to do with any particular political philosophy and includes positive motives. The word has been hijacked by extremists though. Here is an extract of its meaning. 'Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts. ' Source http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html Come on, we both know Goonswarm isn't using the word Jihad to mean 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' . We know they're using it with the definition that terrorists use it. By the same token, "Third Reich" only translates to "Third State", which could mean just about any third government. Third Rail.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:34:00 - [44] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money You're missing the point. So here it is again: Why can Goons use a campaign called Jihad but not a campaign called "the Third Reich", or one called "***"?
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:35:00 - [45] Edited by: Zartanic on 01/10/2009 16:35:42 Originally by: An Anarchyyt I would suggest that if you play Eve to escape from real life you should take that up with a psychologist. Yes your right, and what's acceptable in a game, a book or play may not be in real life. I suspect a lot of players do mix them up though. I mean why do griefers grief? That's always been a puzzle to me and it been a feature of online gaming since UO came out, perhaps before. How can they get any fun from it? While were at it why do people write viruses? Are they sick or Sociopaths? Why do people play 'Jihad'? I dunno and I don't really care. All I know is that if they want to why should I care? It does not affect me or anyone else as its a GAME. If they start doing it in RL they would get banned fast.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:37:00 - [46] Originally by: Blane Xero Seriously, you're an idiot as big as an idiot can be. Really? You need to get out more. Or just watch Fox news once.
Corozan Aspinall	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:38:00 - [47] My alliance recently had its name changed, arbitrarily seemingly with no consultation from CCP. It was completely inoffensive and not explicit in any way. Now we are called Aliance 12345? Nice work. Totally erased our in-game identity. Yet its ok to mock Islamic Jihad? To use phrases like Mujahadeen and Infidel in context with western geeks playing space ships on the internet? This is not offensive to muslims? Sheesh.
Josefius Gallente JOKAS Industries Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:39:00 - [48] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Come on, we both know Goonswarm isn't using the word Jihad to mean 'effort' or 'working hard or diligently' . We know they're using it with the definition that terrorists use it. Seriously, you're an idiot as big as an idiot can be. "Terrorists" Don't use the term Jihad to state war, they use it to state a Struggle (Some could say against oppression but whatever) Like "Mein Kampf"?
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:42:00 - [49] Edited by: Zartanic on 01/10/2009 16:45:32 Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money You're missing the point. So here it is again: Why can Goons use a campaign called Jihad but not a campaign called "the Third Reich", or one called "*"? Well I explained that earlier. If you don't accept that then fine. But here it goes again: 1. Assuming the terrorist form of jihad that is against everyone who is not them and in line with the game's backstory. They hate everyone and that's relevant to the game. 2. * and Third Reich is against a particular group of people, not everyone, and not in the backstory. They only hate a certain group or groups which are irrelevant to the game. To me that's a massive difference but if your someone who finds all things equally offensive then, again as I said, you will not care for the distinction. Finally there is a big difference in tolerance levels in different countries. So what I may find quaint or even humerous others may find offensive. But we're on an international server so that's tough luck.
SupaKudoRio	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:46:00 - [50] Originally by: Corozan Aspinall My alliance recently had its name changed, arbitrarily seemingly with no consultation from CCP. It was completely inoffensive and not explicit in any way. What was the name before? On another note, how do you like your pods in the morning?
Josefius Gallente JOKAS Industries Apocalypse Now.	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:46:00 - [51] Originally by: Zartanic 2. Third Reich is against a particular group of people, not everyone, and not in the backstory. You need to do a little more research. National Socialists wanted to unify Europe and were for a "Pure" and superior race, much like the Amarr, so I can see how they would be tied together.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:47:00 - [52] Originally by: Zartanic Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money You're missing the point. So here it is again: Why can Goons use a campaign called Jihad but not a campaign called "the Third Reich", or one called "*"? Well I explained that earlier. If you don't accept that then fine. But here it goes again: 1. Assuming the terrorist form of jihad that is against everyone who is not them and in line with the game's backstory. They hate everyone and that's relevant to the game. 2. * and Third Reich is against a particular group of people, not everyone, and not in the backstory. They only hate a certain group or groups which are irrelevant to the game. To me that's a massive difference but if your someone who finds all things equally offensive then, again as I said, you will not care for the distinction. But hatred of races IS in the back story. In fact, Amarr at one point enslaved Minmatar. This in itself is just RP and is PERFECTLY FINE. My point is that some idiot can come along and say: "Hey, I hate Minmatar. The * also hated a group in real life. Hmmm, I think I'll form a clan or corp called * because we have that much in common". They go about killing Minmatar, just as Goons go about killing miners. They both are legitimiate actions withint the game. What is not legitimate is the campaign or name they use to exercise these actions. Get it? The mockery is the problem, not the actions themselves.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:49:00 - [53] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Zartanic Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money You're missing the point. So here it is again: Why can Goons use a campaign called Jihad but not a campaign called "the Third Reich", or one called "*"? Well I explained that earlier. If you don't accept that then fine. But here it goes again: 1. Assuming the terrorist form of jihad that is against everyone who is not them and in line with the game's backstory. They hate everyone and that's relevant to the game. 2. * and Third Reich is against a particular group of people, not everyone, and not in the backstory. They only hate a certain group or groups which are irrelevant to the game. To me that's a massive difference but if your someone who finds all things equally offensive then, again as I said, you will not care for the distinction. But hatred of races IS in the back story. In fact, Amarr at one point enslaved Minmatar. This in itself is just RP and is PERFECTLY FINE. My point is that some idiot can come along and say: "Hey, I hate Minmatar. The * also hated a group in real life. Hmmm, I think I'll form a clan or corp called * because we have that much in common". They go about killing Minmatar, just as Goons go about killing miners. They both are legitimiate actions withint the game. What is not legitimate is the campaign or name they use to exercise these actions. Get it? The mockery is the problem, not the actions themselves. And you think Pirates are whiners. Gawd. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:53:00 - [54] Originally by: Blane Xero And you think Pirates are whiners. Gawd. 1. I'm not whining. I'm debating. You seem not to understand the difference. 2. I'm genuinely interested in understanding the difference. I was bored and this thread peaked my interest. Sue me. 3. I'm playing devil's advocate to add a different perspective to the debate. 4. If you have nothing intelligently to add, consider this our last communication on this thread :).
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.10.01 16:56:00 - [55] Originally by: Blane Xero And you think Pirates are whiners. Gawd. And you think that's a good counter argument. Gawd.
Amy Wang	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:01:00 - [56] If you get offended you are playing directly in their hands, just saying...
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:05:00 - [57] Originally by: Amy Wang If you get offended you are playing directly in their hands, just saying... Yeah, but i think this thread is about them crossing 'the line' that other corps and alliances have been disciplined for.
Captain Megadeath	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:16:00 - [58] Poasting in yet another hypocritical yank whinge thread. Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails my name actually is short for catherine
Chi'kote Serenity Ascension G-R-I-E-V-A-N-C-E	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:21:00 - [59] First off: to the person that said * and "terrorist Jihad" are different because * was against a certain group and the jihad is agasint everyone, do more research. "terroris jihad" does have certain groups it hates, not everyone. Furthure more, * was anti-lots of groups, not just one. Secondly: Jihad is just as offensive to a muslims and friends & family soldiers dying in so-called "jihads" as * would be to certain groups. The real reason * is blanked out and Jihad is not is because there aren't enough people playing this game that care and get offended enough to complain. I guarantee you if goons called thier actions a "something to do with the " there would be a shtstorm and CCP would quickly swoop in and correct it. Typical double standard caused by lack of representation. Just because the offended group isn't here in enough numbers to represent themselves does not make it ok to use offensive terms and make light of real life situations. thirdly: to those who say "well the true meaning of the term is 'this', so it is fine" need to realize it is not what the word means definitionally, but how it is used and interpreted in the general public. There are plenty of everyday common words with totaly harmless meanings that are extremely offensive because of how they have been uesd and are interpreted.
Zartanic	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:26:00 - [60] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 01/10/2009 17:03:19 Originally by: Zartanic Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Prove it. Give blood sucking lawyers another reason to steal money You're missing the point. So here it is again: Why can Goons use a campaign called Jihad but not a campaign called "the Third Reich", or one called "*"? Well I explained that earlier. If you don't accept that then fine. But here it goes again: 1. Assuming the terrorist form of jihad that is against everyone who is not them and in line with the game's backstory. They hate everyone and that's relevant to the game. 2. * and Third Reich is against a particular group of people, not everyone, and not in the backstory. They only hate a certain group or groups which are irrelevant to the game. To me that's a massive difference but if your someone who finds all things equally offensive then, again as I said, you will not care for the distinction. But hatred of races IS in the back story. In fact, Amarr at one point enslaved Minmatar. This in itself is just RP and is PERFECTLY FINE. My point is that some idiot can come along and say: "Hey, I hate Minmatar in-game The *** also hates a certain group in real life. Hmmm, I think I'll form a clan or corp called * because we have that much in common". This new "clan" goes about killing Minmatar in-game which is PERFECTLY LEGAL AND FINE, just as Goons go about killing miners. They both are legitimiate actions within the game. What is not legitimate is the campaign or name they use to exercise these actions. Get it? The mockery is the problem, not the actions themselves. If you think this "idiot" from my example has no right to start a group called the *, which he shares a connection or parallel with in terms of goals (ie, kill a certain group of people) but Goons do have a right to start a campaign called Jihad, I'm interested in understanding why would one be OK while the other wouldn't. I'm sure if Bin Laden was upset he would pop up here and say so. But then he is unlikely to play the game. But if he does he can complain like anyone else. The targets of the other groups you mentioned do commonly play the game and do not involve themselves in terrorist activities. To me the difference is clear why they allow one and not the other. I see what Goonswarm do as ironic and infact a good practical example of what religious intolerance means, you see the opposite.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.