Should speech and conduct rules be enforced in the Smash community?

[enCouRaging Bear]

smash - it's serious business

 

[KrIsP!]

Just saying, when a gamer says that was gay. Like you get gimped and say that was gay, how could you translate that to that was happy? So the argument of gay meaning happy is invalid

That wasn't the argument. I agree with shrouded here, f*** has so many different meanings and those are only harmful depending on the context. Saying something is ****ing awesome shouldnt offended anybody and in the same way gay and f** as well as queer started out with different meanings so why now can't we change these meanings to become something that no one can get butt hurt over.(Pun intended, this means something different now) **** I can understand, that is a word with a definition that means something horrible. F** is a slang term with an original of old women who gathered firewood which changed to bundle of sticks which hanged to young male boys made to do menial tasks which changed to homosexual as it's meaning had become used for boys who were hazed and made to do embarrassing even sexual acts for their upper classmen. Why now can't we continue the chain and make it meaning something that is not meant to offend homosexuals.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Isn't it similarly selfish to expect there to be rules in place so that you won't by chance be offended by something someone might happen to say? There are words that make me feel uncomfortable, and I'm not going to go out of my way to be offensive. That isn't what I'm saying. But should I restrict someone from expressing themselves in a way that they like to (within reason, because violent/harassing messages as a form of expression should not be tolerated [i.e. saying things with the intent to harm]), because I, or someone else, could get offended/hurt?

I'm not offended (personally, anyway) by the usage of most pejoratives as they are not meant to apply to me (a straight, white male), so I don't see how it could be considered selfish of me to object to such word usage. I'm not doing it for my benefit. And even if I were gay, and objecting for my own benefit, I think you have to do a cost/benefit analysis of using a term pejoratively such as the usage of "gay" that we've been talking about, from the perspective of those who use the term versus those who are harmed by it.

For someone who wants to use the term "gay" in this way, the benefit is ostensibly the freedom to speak uninhibited, without regard to the feelings of anyone else. The cost of not using the term is minimal to nonexistent. It makes no difference to one's self-esteem and happiness whether one uses the term in this way.

For someone who is harmed by this usage, e.g., a gay man, the cost of this usage is frequent reminder that he is not really part of the group, that people would look down on him if they knew his sexual orientation (or that they do look down on him if they know), and is redolent of years of bullying they have likely endured. And the benefit of his friends and acquaintances not using the term this way, is being able to feel part of the group, not being looked down on, and not being reminded of bullying. For this person it can make a significant difference to his self-esteem and happiness as to whether he feels he is in a prejudicial environment or not.

So I ask you, which of these positions is more selfish?

It's also worth noting that if you think some forms of pejoratives are acceptable, based on your reasoning, one could easily argue that all pejoratives are acceptable. Why shouldn't I run around shouting the N-Word at every black person I see? Isn't it selfish to demand white people don't say this? This is where your argument leads, your "within reason" caveat notwithstanding. The only difference between this example and this present usage of "gay," aside from a possible difference of degree, is that prejudice against gays is much more socially acceptable than prejudice against black people. Gay people still lack many rights and homophobia is not considered nearly as intolerable as racism.

If they didn't co-opt it, then why not refer to yourselves as something else with the same meaning? Like lollipops? Or fuzzycats?

I explained this in my last post. To co-opt a word means to take its original meaning, change it, and assign the new meaning to oneself or one's group. That is not what happened. By the 1960s several terms were being used by heterosexuals to describe homosexuals such as queer, f*ggot, gay, homosexual, etc. The term "gay" was ALREADY being used to describe homosexuals. The gay community simply came to prefer the term "gay" over these others, for reasons I have already mentioned. There was no co-option. Gay people no more co-opted the term "gay" than black people co-opted the term "black." These were simply descriptors already in use that became the preferred nomenclature.

As for your point about lollipops and fuzzycats, I'm not sure what you mean.

I do take your point that there is some connection between the pervasive opinion of gay people (or what was the pervasive opinion, for a while), and what the word means now (lame, girly, weak, effeminate, etc), and when the word is used to denote something as lame, I don't doubt that there are people who make the direct association between gay people and gay being lame. But that isn't what the majority of the gaming community who uses that word intends it to be taken as.

How do you know this? Some players may not be aware of it consciously (though they should be), but they know at least subconsciously that they are using a word negatively in reference to a group of people. In any case, it isn't really the issue whether 90% or 30% of Smashers are using the word hatefully. How can anyone tell the difference? If someone says "Stop being gay" in response to camping, how is one to know whether he means this pejoratively or not? If the person playing the match is gay, does it affect him differently if the term is used pejoratively or not? No, because he can't tell the difference. By the way, if you can't tell the difference between a comment that is pejorative and one that isn't, that is a pretty good indication you shouldn't say it.

But I think the community (Smash, specifically) would be a lot less accepting of people who are gay, if that were the case. And they're not.

How accepting, exactly, is the Smash community of gay people, and how do you determine this? I would think this should be determined by how comfortable gay people (closeted or not) feel when being around other Smashers. And I really don't think frequent usage of hostile language is going to make them feel comfortable. Sure, there are a few openly gay Smashers, but not that many. Somewhere from 5 - 10% of males are gay or bisexual, but how many Smashers are openly gay? I don't know the answer, but is it more than 1%? I doubt it. What kind of behavior is considered "accepting of people who are gay"? I mean, agreed, Smashers aren't beating anyone to death or anything, but if that's the standard here that's pretty ****ed.

Black, straight male, actually.

I agree and disagree, here. Yes, epithets are very hurtful and harmful to varying groups of people, and it costs no one anything to simply stop saying them. But again, the reason why these words have the power and impact they do is due to the messages that accompany them. The best example I have of this is the infamous "n-word." It was used as a hurtful, derogatory word towards black people, a conduit (one of many) for their hatred of the race. Now, black people use it among themselves, with a sense of common bonding, almost. At the very least, it's kind of become synonymous to "brother." (In certain contexts, obviously.)

I didn't mean to imply you were a white, straight male, but only that these are the people who are most unaffected by the use of pejoratives / epithets. Since we're talking about a pejorative for sexual orientation I think here the only relevant class would be "straight" and possibly "male."

It is interesting that you bring up the N-word. I don't think the evolution of meaning is similar, but both "gay" and the N-word are presently being used in meanings at least somewhat different from the original. The meaningful comparison here, though, is not whether black people use the N-word, as I'm sure no one would object if gay people used certain sexual-orientation pejoratives amongst themselves, but whether people who aren't black should use the N-word. There are many white people who believe they should be allowed to use the N-word in the "brother" sense, but it's considered hateful by many black people due to the historical use of the term. Even if "gay" is now being used in a benign sense (which I contest below), does it not make sense that gay people would object due to earlier use as an implication of lameness, effeminacy, cowardice, etc.? I don't see how anyone could possibly believe that it is acceptable for straight people to use "gay" in this way but not for white people to use the N-word in the "brother" sense, as the positions seem logically contradictory.

My point is that words have no meaning aside from the context we give them, and that the same word can mean different things in different situations/times. So, we shouldn't be getting so caught up on the word itself.

This seems to be a pretty common argument, that when saying something like "Camping is gay," people are using the word "gay" in a different context and that it does not mean "characteristic of a gay man," but the argument is without merit, for that is EXACTLY what this usage means. Younger gamers may not realize this, but homophobia was (and still is, though to a lesser extent) rampant among gaming communities. Calling a straight person "gay" is an insult, an attack on that person's masculinity. Describing someone's playing style as "gay" is similarly an attack on that person's masculinity. Let's look at a common situation in SSBM.

Player A, who plays Fox, is counterpicked by some floaty to DL64 and is laser camping as a strategy.
Player B says "Stop being so gay"

What exactly does Player B mean? He means that laser camping is a strategy that is characteristic of a gay man. Now some people may object when I say this, but think about it. What are some of the stereotypes about gay men as compared to straight men? Gay men are weak. They are girly. They are effeminate. They are cowardly. They are lame. They are not aggressive. They would rather run away from a fight than "fight like a man." What Player B is doing is attacking the masculinity of Player A by implying that he doesn't fight like a real man, but rather, fights like a gay man. This is EXACTLY what "gay" in this context means. I know it's possible some players, especially younger ones, may not be aware of this, but they really should be. I think the evolution of the term has occurred something like this:

1. Gay men are seen as weak, cowardly, effeminate, lame. They don't "fight like men."
2. Certain tactics, such as laser camping, are seen as weak, cowardly, effeminate, lame. Players using these tactics don't "fight like men."
3. These players and their tactics are described as "gay."
4. Over time this description becomes so common that some players may not be aware of the meaning in this context. To them, "gay" now means "using certain tactics like laser camping." They have no understanding of why this particular word was chosen.
5. They are now naive enough to think the word has lost its original meaning, or even to contest that it ever had such meaning.

Yet it's clear from experience what is meant. I have played many tournament matches where I was laser camping extensively, because I felt it was the best strategy, and on multiple occasions, I would hear small groups watching the game describing my playstyle as "gay" or describing me as "gay." They also did this when I was playing Ice Climbers and wobbling people. At all times I understood exactly what they meant. I was using cowardly and unmanly tactics, unbecoming of a straight man, and they did not approve. It was rather unsettling, and if I were a gay man, it would be much more so.

 

[Beat!]

Just saying, when a gamer says that was gay. Like you get gimped and say that was gay, how could you translate that to that was happy? So the argument of gay meaning happy is invalid

Hold on, do you hear that?

That was the sound of you missing the point entirely.

 

[Bing]

Lmfao.

In hindsight. I did miss the point lmfao

Sorry shrouded, I agree, I post at work so I dont really pay full attention because im on an insurance call 90% of the time.

In regards to the whole "If the game has to die because of language thing though"

Thats ********. If people want to walk away from the game because the people involved are too Vulgar or have a poor choice of words. Then they can leave or learn to deal with it. The gamie dying is a bit extreme...

 

[Fregadero]

Im just saying if you try to enforce language rules with any type of punishment and you're goin to see a lot of back lash.

 

[Bing]

Being honest, if someones truly being ridiculous, someone will become aggitated and tell them to stfu....

 

[Shai Hulud]

Im just saying if you try to enforce language rules with any type of punishment and you're goin to see a lot of back lash.

I agree with this. I don't think language rules should be enforced, except possibly for commentators, but even then only by suggesting guidelines rather than ejecting/punishing commentators. Also I have no objection to swearing/cursing (as long as it's not abusive) but I do find racially or sexually tinged comments inappropriate, and believe that Smashers should be self-policing in regulating this. I certainly don't want to see TO's ejecting people for saying "f*ck!" when they SD combo or something. We're not little kids. Well, maybe some of us are, but still.

 

[Linkshot]

I have no problem with the common swears. They don't really hold any emotional weight. It's the words that were clearly meant to be derogatory toward groups of people or are using their destructive meaning to describe an action. Those need to go. I don't think it's "We should be mature enough to let this slide," it's "We should be mature enough to realize this might hurt people."

 

[Bing]

I think that racial terms do need to go, so I do agree, but unfortunately I dont think the word "gay" will be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Dark Hart]

Guys we can never use the word ignorant ever again because it reminds me of the word nigger too much because you know that's where it came from

 

[Fierce Deku]

My point is that words are only vessels for the meanings that you want to get across with them. I could use the same word in two different contexts, and you'd interpret it in two different ways. Which is my point: the words themselves are never the problem, and trying to tell people to stop saying words (while it costs them nothing to stop saying that word) is sort of...odd.

I just don't think "words" have any importance.

The only importance they have is applied meaning we give them. The word '****' could mean ice cream in BoatModeSpeak.

Gay and **** mean something different in the videogame community

Words

Get over them

They're not magic

My point is that words have no meaning aside from the context we give them, and that the same word can mean different things in different situations/times. So, we shouldn't be getting so caught up on the word itself.

Look, this whole argument about words not mattering, what a word could mean, what a word used to mean, what you actually meant when you said a word, etc., I don't see how it justifies anything. Yes, words are not magical, that's why you have to be careful with them; no one can EVER just magically convey the exact meaning in their head, not even with the help of context. Words go out there, and the people who hear them will interpret them based on their own experience. For some people **** will always mean violating someone and violently forcing them to have sex against their will. Congratulations to those of you who don't have to think about that sh** every time you hear the word, but I'm sorry, not everyone can separate the two definitions so cleanly. A lot of people will always find themselves thinking of the other interpretations of a term even if they're aware of what a gamer actually meant by it. It's great if someone doesn't actually look down on gay people, but if they run around using gay as a negative term every other sentence, how are others supposed to know that they aren't actually prejudiced?

You can't always fix the problem by saying the word means something else in this context (even if it works for you, not everyone has your brain to interpret language with), you can always fix the problem by using another word.

I agree and disagree, here. Yes, epithets are very hurtful and harmful to varying groups of people, and it costs no one anything to simply stop saying them. But again, the reason why these words have the power and impact they do is due to the messages that accompany them. The best example I have of this is the infamous "n-word." It was used as a hurtful, derogatory word towards black people, a conduit (one of many) for their hatred of the race. Now, black people use it among themselves, with a sense of common bonding, almost. At the very least, it's kind of become synonymous to "brother." (In certain contexts, obviously.)

The problem with a term like gay is that there is not some discreet 'black person saying it/white person saying it' distinction like with the n-word example. Even with the gaming context, the messages that accompanies using gay as negative term is not just a message of something being lame, it's also interpreted by many as a message of looking down on actual gay people. A person can easily both look down on gay people AND use the term gay to mean "lame"; that makes perfect sense and people don't know for sure that someone isn't using both implications at once. It's not like the n-word example, where it doesn't make sense for a black person to be hating on black people and thus it must have a different meaning in that context. The bottom line is no matter how common the gamer use of gay is, there are still a lot of people who also interpret it as a homophobic slur, so expecting only the "lame" definition (and nothing else) to come across to everybody is just not effective communication.

F** is a slang term with an original of old women who gathered firewood which changed to bundle of sticks which hanged to young male boys made to do menial tasks which changed to homosexual as it's meaning had become used for boys who were hazed and made to do embarrassing even sexual acts for their upper classmen. Why now can't we continue the chain and make it meaning something that is not meant to offend homosexuals.

As shown by the fact that we're replacing the last two letters with *s, F** is seen by people in the current day as offensive. Why try to mess with the definition and go through a painful transition period of some people thinking it's ok and some people still interpreting it as bad, when we could just use a different word entirely? It comes back to the theme of 'way easy to stop using offensive words and find substitutes/way hard to convince everyone that an already offensive term is no longer offensive'.

In regards to the whole "If the game has to die because of language thing though"

Thats ********. If people want to walk away from the game because the people involved are too Vulgar or have a poor choice of words. Then they can leave or learn to deal with it. The gamie dying is a bit extreme...

Unfortunately it doesn't matter how silly one finds that statement, it's going to happen regardless. Now, obviously the smash scene isn't going to suddenly die because some people are using gay as an insult or something, but the more vulgar/offensive a community is, the more players leave/never join in the first place, the more sponsors/parents/venue owners/etc. shy away, and so on. Asking offended people to just deal with it instead of asking offensive people to make some simple wording changes is just bad for community growth.

Im just saying if you try to enforce language rules with any type of punishment and you're goin to see a lot of back lash.

I agree with this. I don't think language rules should be enforced, except possibly for commentators, but even then only by suggesting guidelines rather than ejecting/punishing commentators. Also I have no objection to swearing/cursing (as long as it's not abusive) but I do find racially or sexually tinged comments inappropriate, and believe that Smashers should be self-policing in regulating this. I certainly don't want to see TO's ejecting people for saying "f*ck!" when they SD combo or something. We're not little kids. Well, maybe some of us are, but still.

I agree with this generally. Certainly there shouldn't be a rule that anyone who says **** should get kicked out or anything, and personally I'm fine at least for the moment with there being no particular written rule about punishments for offensive behavior (obviously a TO will still reserve the right to remove total psychos at any time). I do think it'd be helpful though to have some kind of general rule about offensive behavior to remind people why it's a problem for the community and kind of set keeping it clean as the standard to look to. Mostly I think it's a social level thing that can be handled with brief announcements, a simple "hey bro don't say it like that you don't want the new faces to get the wrong idea", and just generally looking down on offensiveness/setting a higher standard for people.

I'm not saying we should ban everyone who says something offensive, but anyone who can't be bothered to at lest try to avoid using a term which makes the people around them feel uncomfortable/hated (when they have no particular need for the word in the first place) is just failing at the concept of community growth. I'm sorry, that's just how society works. Which sounds like the more reasonable request: asking some people to accept that others use language which is demeaning towards them and they should do nothing about it, or asking some people to accept that some of the words they use are causing a problem for others and should be avoided? Just deal with it when people harm you, or do something to prevent yourself from harming other people?

 

[Shai Hulud]

Good post Fierce Deku.

In regards to the negative environment created by Smashers towards certain groups, there is another group that has been largely overlooked, and that's females. I imagine females interpret the word "****" quite differently from males, but there are many other examples of constant misogyny in the community. Just listen to any commentated match involving Ice Climbers. The commentators are frequently saying things like "Oh, Nana can't handle life outside the kitchen!" Seriously, you will hear at least several misogynistic comments in a span of a few minutes. Now just imagine, if any females are actually watching the match, how does this make them feel? Does it make them want to join a largely male group with 1950s-era views of women? Or does it make them shrink away in disgust?

And we could definitely use more female Smash players. It's hard enough to get females interested in joining gaming communities because of the lack of peers, but it's even harder when that community is constantly denigrating their gender.

I don't know about Brawl, but the Melee tournament scene is about 99% male. I don't think it would ever be possible to get an even gender distribution, or to even get close, but we could certainly do better than 1% female.

 

[Kal]

I think that individuals deciding they think something is offensive, and thus refusing to use it, is great. I personally try to avoid calling things gay, and I try to avoid using the term "****." However, I have no problem with using swear words, because in general their distinction as "profanity" is arbitrary, and does not derive from their being offensive (to individuals, at least, though their sensibilities are often offended, which is not unique to profanity).

What I have a problem with, and what people here seem worried about, is the slippery slope of trying to institutionalize this kind of "nice behavior." I don't think anyone here has suggested that we actually institutionalize it, but rather, like racism, personally refuse to engage in it (at least overtly) and shun those who do. So, while we all certainly agree that someone has the right to be racist, we also agree that people who hold such beliefs should be ostracized. And I think, on the whole, that is what people want (to perhaps a lesser degree) with regards to profanity and, more specifically, words like "****" and "gay."

Which, I'm sure we all agree, is mostly fine (though there are those that see this vernacular as a form of self expression, and see the above response as a form of inhibiting it, which I think is at least somewhat valid). My only concern would be with institutionalizing such a thing. There are a variety of reasons this would be problematic, which I won't go into too much depth explaining, but it's important to realize that it's possible to make an argument for why any word can be construed as offensive. With an institutionalized "political correctness," we see this becoming problematic. So, in certain instances, given a sufficiently good chance of the word actually being offensive (with words like "gay" and "****", for example), I see nothing wrong with encouraging and advocating not using the word. We just need to be careful, I think, before we let political correctness become justification for abridging the right to free speech.

 

[Shai Hulud]

I think that individuals deciding they think something is offensive, and thus refusing to use it, is great. I personally try to avoid calling things gay, and I try to avoid using the term "****." However, I have no problem with using swear words, because in general their distinction as "profanity" is arbitrary, and does not derive from their being offensive (to individuals, at least, though their sensibilities are often offended, which is not unique to profanity).

What I have a problem with, and what people here seem worried about, is the slippery slope of trying to institutionalize this kind of "nice behavior." I don't think anyone here has suggested that we actually institutionalize it, but rather, like racism, personally refuse to engage in it (at least overtly) and shun those who do. So, while we all certainly agree that someone has the right to be racist, we also agree that people who hold such beliefs should be ostracized. And I think, on the whole, that is what people want (to perhaps a lesser degree) with regards to profanity and, more specifically, words like "****" and "gay."

Which, I'm sure we all agree, is mostly fine (though there are those that see this vernacular as a form of self expression, and see the above response as a form of inhibiting it, which I think is at least somewhat valid). My only concern would be with institutionalizing such a thing. There are a variety of reasons this would be problematic, which I won't go into too much depth explaining, but it's important to realize that it's possible to make an argument for why any word can be construed as offensive. With an institutionalized "political correctness," we see this becoming problematic. So, in certain instances, given a sufficiently good chance of the word actually being offensive (with words like "gay" and "****", for example), I see nothing wrong with encouraging and advocating not using the word. We just need to be careful, I think, before we let political correctness become justification for abridging the right to free speech.

You realize the term "politically correct" is just a pejorative created by conservatives to mock legitimate concerns about sensitive issues like race, gender, etc.?

 

[Kal]

Yeah, "political correctness" may not have been the appropriate term. Sorry.

 

[Fregadero]

Honestly most TOs should probably just put a warning/disclaimer about respecting the venue and other players by watching languages, like the ones I've seen for tournaments at churches and the like. Trying to actually enforce language rules on anyone who isnt being recorded is only going to cause problems.

/Thread

 

[Kink-Link5]

I thought forward slashes went out of style in 2009.

I will say it is not fair to restrict what can be said as offensive when nearly everything can be to a prudish enough ear.

Should we ban use of the word "Hella" because it offends Evangelical Christians?

 

[Bing]

Okay so I see there's been a lot of talk in regards to how someone would enforce these things if they were to ever become implimented. Its actually rather simple. Its clear that Vulgar words will always exist. People are not going to change the way they speak because of a "silly" rule. However here's how it goes, I know we are almost all adults here, I mean generally speaking we don't have anyone under 16-17 attend tournaments, and even still, at this age most people are accepting of how people are. But if a rule was to be put in making Excessive Vulgar language to be banned, then it would come down to a) a T.O overhearing said words or b) another player "telling on" the player.

With that being said, if we want to effect change, we cannot just simply say "KK no swearing period." "Or okay cannot use these terms:_______________"

I do believe it is possible to change the use of these terms and it starts with changing the rules bit by bit.

So to start, add in rules that give people many chances to make mistakes, but still have consequences. After a few tournaments reduce the number of chances someone gets. Decrease tolerance levels and all that Jazz. Repeat process to allow like a chance(Slip up) and thats it.

If a person cannot contain themselves and continues to be vulgar without showing any signs of progression. Temporary Ban. When they come back, if they havent changed or atleast made an effort. Ban.

Its do able, and this is a long process, but its better than none.

Also I know that we are adults for the most part(like 95% of us. And we are going to swear, I'll be the first to admit, I swear at tournaments. But if there are words that offend people, impliment the rules towards only those words, and yes they are going to slip out once and awhile, so TO's can still be lenient to these things, its just a start.

Possible way of determining these things, have everyone write down what bothers them and put it in a coffee can or something, without names, and everyone must submit one to help the whole "Oh Mike's the only one to put a slip in,


Anyways Im tired and at work...

 

[AlphaZealot]

It all starts with the TO. The TO should simply give a speech in the beginning about the entire tournament and somewhere in there also mention what is expected (respect, no profanity, etc.). The point of the speech is NOT just to talk about conduct, but for me I've always given an introduction at my tournaments so people know who to go too, what the schedule/format is, what general rules are, and so on.

Also I've run a tournament (BOMB) where it was at a church and in the OP we said not to curse/say stupid things since priests would be in and out of the venue. People were generally well behaved.

 

[Bing]

Like its inevitable that people are going to swear and be a bit vulgar, I mean you're playing an intense, close set and you Illusion to your death. "****!" Its going to happen and i think most people can respect that. I think some people are just against certain terms(Gay, ****, racial slurs) etc.