Most of the people who use "****" and "gay" the way they do also think they're right, no?
They think they're justified. In a way that's not about being right or wrong. They acknowledge that certain people will feel strongly against their usage of the words, but assuming they don't find it necessary to keep these people in their favor/company, they can simply choose not to associate with these people and vice versa.
1. The absence of promise from sponsorships doesn't mean we should abandon the idea anyway. Shaping up a bit and then trying to show companies that we're worth sponsoring can't hurt.
But who's offering the criteria we need to gain favor from these companies? How are we monitoring the demeanor attendees and showing our observations to relevant parties (I might have missed the part in your blog so feel fee to gut me)? The way you're pinning the focus on potential elephants in the room is something that can be awkward/difficult for some parties to advocate if we don't have some clear objectives. Imagine the most vulgar, yet passionate, tourney-goer turning around his language because you've told him "If you can do this, we MIGHT be able to get sponsors and make our tournies even better!" Someone appeals to Nintendo or MLG to sponsor us and we come to find out the language wasn't even the main issue. Even if our aforementioned tourney-goer doesn't give an exaggerated "I made all these changes for nothing!" response, he's likely to just go back to his old ways and now you still have a small group of people being driven away from tournies due people like him.
In short, I feel like for your idea to
effectively work, incentives have to be solidified. I think I've been putting out the vibe that I think these ideas should be tossed out the window, so I hope that clarifies that I just believe more needs to be done/considered to really influence people.
2. I have had females privately contact me about that blog telling me that the usage of the word "****" originally drove them away from tournaments at first. There are a few anecdotes in the blog's comments where people discuss how this has affected their friends or family.
I'm on the fence about this one. Consideration is a good thing, especially when a relatively common goal among the community is to get more people, including females, to attend tournaments. On the other hand, I feel like if people are too sensitive to read into the context and just be offended by what's on the surface (and they don't hold any kind of influence on the future of the community) then no one's forcing them to be there. There are more relevant things to like/dislike people in the community for, like hygiene or particularly bad attitudes.
So you're saying that it's only worth cutting out offensive vocabulary if there's some kind of tangible reward rather than it (at least, the way I and many others see it) being the morally right thing to do? That's upsetting.
In a general setting where I'm out to have fun? Absolutely. Some people find restricting themselves in this manner out of morals personally rewarding (otherwise we wouldn't be talking) but for the others (including me), it's usually an inconvenience. Don't get me wrong, I have my own morals. I like to be nice and welcoming to those around me. Heck if we were meeting for the first time in a friendly match, I'd probably take a breif amount of time getting to know you before I started saying obscene things in conversations with you. But if there's just some random person next to me that I don't notice who takes offense if shout "****!" during a 0-death combo or something, it's just one person I know I'm less likely to affiliate with.
The only reason this opinion conflicts with any social standards is because said social standard stems from ignorance. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that making a word that a group of people identifies themselves by synonymous with something negative is wrong? (lol horrible sentence structure)
Don't worry I understood.
This is when we have to take value in context. We get the same type of argument when dealing with racial slurs. Sure we *know* that the word is made out to be negative, but are we using it with the intent to offend and hurt someone? Usually the answer is no. I can make Asian jokes with SleepyK all day long and he can make black jokes about me and our conversations can be just as hilarious for either one of us, because past that we respect each other as friends and don't think of each other in the manner that our respective stereotypes would imply. Would you consider that to be morally wrong? If not, what's to keep the people who are currently offended by similar words from making the same kind of strides. Likely the issue I brought up in that it takes effort to step out of their comfort zone.
The immediate reason for the restraint being worth it should be that you're offending less people.
People are going to like/dislike me for one reason or the other. There are some areas that *should* be considered when you step out the door in consideration of other people (stuff that effects people a LOT more universally, like hygiene), but when it comes to language which ties in to personality, the person offended by me is likely not going to like me regardless of my language and vice versa. If I don't like someone in that case, why WOULD it be worth it to me if I stopped offending them? If I used a term that offended them, I'm likely not even talking to or about them. The only basic care I have for someone I haven't even met is that they are healthy, breathing, and unharmed.
The secondary, but relevant reason is to stop Smash from looking like a bunch of uncultured, inarticulate high school children. Even if most of them are, potential benefactors for our community aren't going to put us on a lie detector to make sure we're not pretending to be big boys. The image we cast is the image they take on for supporting us. Fix the image and we become a much better prospect.
I support the intent, but this would be a self-sufficient "reward" for the "children," so you'd have to REALLY sell it to them. If Smash looks the way to outsiders as you claim it looks like, then the majority is going to represent our image. Being as "uncultured" as you make said majority out to be, are you certain your words are reaching out to them?
Oh no, EFFORT. It really takes any more than five seconds of thought to select one of the endless synonyms that people have made for "gay"? Lame, stupid, overpowered, overused, annoying; it goes on and on. ****? Try bodied, blown up, destroyed, wrecked, demolished, stomped on, crushed.
Changing your vocabulary isn't always easy, but cutting out expletives/offensive words or choosing a synonym is probably the easiest form of modification that you can make. What positive exists when nobody is against this kind of language? You're more free to speak your mind? The ability to express those thoughts is certainly still there, just pick a word that actually means it.
"My daughter has a lame leg from a birth defect, I take offense to that."
"My brother was blown up in Iraq, I take offense to that."
Who's the authority on what's more fair to say than any other word I could have chosen? Do we omit certain terms from consideration because they "don't offend as much/as many other people." How would we even gauge that? When we start making these kinds of distinctions, then I do think effort on this part becomes more of a hassle for what it's worth, unless we REALLY wanna feign ignorance on all the technicalities, which is not completely out of the equation since the offended parties like to feign ignorance on the context on the offensive words.
Just so I'm clear, I'll end with:
- I support the idea of getting better recognition through better image, so long as we confirm the tangible benefits.
- Anyone who can enjoy the moral benefits are at the mercy of their own prerogative and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm glad you feel good about yourselves.
- When it comes to a common goal, one party is going to have to conform to the others' standards or make compromises, but if we're talking about change to what's commonly accepted, the ground rules need to be clarified and justified. Not everyone is keen on the idea of making changes through morals, especially when it comes to something as sensitive as censorship.
- I REALLY believe that some individuals have to toughen up and read into the context of words before finding them offensive. So much drama has started because people don't like the way something sounds as opposed to what it means. These same individuals probably don't care about changing the official definition of "*** (a-word)" and "***** (b-word)" as they actually relate to their animal counterparts.
