About the word "rape" in games - please take a look

I think the gist of the article and subsequently what has been discussed here is that language in not merely arbitrary in either form or function and that insulting words, some for reasons more than others, can tend to have carry over effects. If we suppose that inasmuch some words on a lexical hierarchy have semantic features or properties which are more integral to their meaning and conceptual consonance then it would reasonably follow their use has implicit associations (at least more so than others)to be aware of. The long and short of which is to say, yes it is not so unreasonable to temper one's use of speech.

whilst that is a somewhat more reasonable way of explaining points already raised it does overlook what I just touched upon and reiterate the same justification for the misuse of offensive terms. In particular, language is not exclusively contextual, although it can be rightly said that context will modify meaning there remain core semantic qualities which produce both conceptual and even physiological effects. The latter being an interesting case for why offensive swear words have a pronounced effect even when referring to the same object or process (e.g. going to the bathroom etc).

I expect the same point will be repeated so I'll just rephrase this once more: although the use of offensive language is widespread and common that is not in itself a reason to use language that is either common or 'contextually mediated'.

The word Rape does not offend me and I don't get traumatized by its use, in fact I was playing Go Fish with some Mates at Lunch, I had to give up 3 Kings and the guys comment was "I just raped you" I did think 'that's an interesting phrase to use', I didn't feel the need to adjust his attitude or behaviour.

I also doubt that he is "pro-rape". Rather he would go out of his way to Prevent/Stop a Rape.

I am also a straight male, the word Faggot bothers me. I have Gay friends and don't think that using the word "Faggot" is ever necessary, its deliberately aggressive and aimed at causing emotional hurt.

So we should ban the word Faggot on my account?
I don't think so, I just hope that when people are using it in Games/Real life they aren't purposely using the venom that the word carries and instead are just making a comment which they think will humour others as it humours them.

tl;dr It's just a word, Murder is just a word, Torture is just a word. We say "Work today was torture, I fell like Killing my Boss" that doesn't mean that everyone in the room should freak out because I brought up 2 very Traumatic Situations, Murder and Torture. They'll probably just laugh and send you a Beer. They wont call CNN and ask for a Global Gag on the word "Kill" and "Torture"

"

I just hope that when people are using it in Games/Real life they aren't purposely using the venom that the word carries and instead are just making a comment which they think will humour others as it humours them.

the problem here is there is no certain way to dissociate intended use. The more pertinent issue underlying the same situation is given how language functions you cannot reliably dissociate the implicit effects of meaning these words have. Taken together both these complications in any social context would bring into question why offensive language is permissible if neither intention nor essential meaning can be extricated from otherwise or what has become conventional use.

so, as to 'murder just a word', more astutely it is a term intrinsically linked to a conceptual nexus, as with any other word and so on. For which reasons we could reverse the reasoning and ask why it is necessary to use some words in a manner that is inherently offensive or for that matter how they are justified by reference to ostensibly trivial examples. If the ideas discussed are any indication it could be said facets of everyday language are not wholly innocuous even if conventionally would seem to suggest as much.

I am not saying that if they dont intent Harm with their choice of words, then it can do no harm.

What I am saying is just that I hope they aren't actually that small minded or vicious that they actually intend to do Harm to someone they just beat in a Game.

ie: When you are being Tea Bagged in CS:GO and the Player is saying "Raped you n00b" they aren't hoping you run into the Bathroom and cry for 30 minutes.

They are just expressing their joy at beating you. Albeit in a fairly immature way.

Offensive to some but not to others:
Car Crash victims can be pretty traumatized and suffer life long disability, but there is a lot of reference to it and even games Cantered around Car Crashes... should we block that too? I imagine that if I caused a car accident that killed my best friend and left me a Paraplegic, I might enjoy playing video Games. Imagine the horror as I'm playing Call of Duty or Battlefield and suddenly there is a Car Crash scene/stage in the game. Am I right to write in to EA and demand that be removed and then to have EA comply?

Liberties:
At the end of the day, most of us enjoy our liberties as a part of our Democratic System, it's not very Democratic to censor 98% of people because 2% of people are want it gone.

Words:
Words are just sounds. In Romanian the word for 'do' sounds exactly like "Fuck" in English ... so if I am speaking to my Mother on the phone in a public place, should I never say "I will do (fuck) that"?

Sounds of Words:
Grape sounds like Rape, actually if you are not directly listening to me and I say "I want a Grape" you may easily freak out and mistake that for "I wanna Rape"
Is Grape now as bad as Rape in the context of Words and the offence they can carry?

Its not, because they are just words, and words only carry as much weight as we give to them.
Like I said, I've experienced this and don't think it merits becoming an issue.

Rape Statistics from the Authority on Rape:
According to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network there are approx 4.2million Rape Victims in the USA. Bump it up to 5 Million to be on the safer side, even though that number was from 2012 and since 1993 Rape cases have decreased by 50%.
So that's not even .02% of the Population.

It is unlikely that all those 5,000,000 are playing Games
Just as its unlikely that the 320,000,000 in the USA are all playing Games.

Pleasing the few at the expense of the many:
But are we really going to censor and change games because it might bother some of the 0.02% of the people? What about Movies, Books, Theatre Productions, Sex Shops with Bondage equipment?

Because if we are, there are a lot of things that bother a lot more than 0.02% of the population which we need to censor next, not just from games but from the vocabulary too.
And a lot of other aspects of life.

And before someone says "yeah well Rape is extraordinary situation"
It is an Extraordinary situation, just like most other situations.

Context:
It's probable that 0.02% of the population are Allergic to Grass. But there isn't an outcry to get rid of Grass.
Even thought allergies can Kill someone, they are living with the very real danger that Anaphylaxis will strike and kill them at any moment. Anywhere, not just when they want to relax, all day every day.

Many groups of Minorities are sensitive to many things, we expect that people will use common sense and sensibility.

People aren't sitting on their couch saying "oh, you are a Rape victim, well I WILL RAPE YOU SO HARD! FOR REAL! WHAT IS YOU ADDRESS!? IM COMING FOR YOU!"
They are saying "oh man! did you see that Headshot? I raped you!" (and rarely at that, its not an epidemic where as soon as you turn on VoIP you are berated with Rape talk)

Lets use common sense and NOT take this as a personal attack and assume this person has intimate knowledge of your past.

Lets also use some sensibility and not go around telling people that my Tastes and Preferences should dictate how they live their lives and behave.

"

Car Crash victims can be pretty traumatized and suffer life long disability, but there is a lot of reference to it and even games Cantered around Car Crashes... should we block that too? I imagine that if I caused a car accident that killed my best friend and left me a Paraplegic, I might enjoy playing video Games. Imagine the horror as I'm playing Call of Duty or Battlefield and suddenly there is a Car Crash scene/stage in the game. Am I right to write in to EA and demand that be removed and then to have EA comply?

there are evidently more tactful ways to refer to traumatic experiences which do not sensationalise the associated acts or experiences. Beyond which this issue has shifted to whether graphic representation is acceptable for the same reasons. So to continue the points at hand why would it be problematic to endorse 'lol rape' or even for that matter simulated rape if these effects are wholly dissociable. These curious justifications help to demonstrate the extent to which such dualistic notions (indeed it is the new duality Descartes) of content are treated as somehow thematically inert (inasmuch as the organisation of behavioural factors are concerned).

"

At the end of the day, most of us enjoy our liberties as a part of our Democratic System, it's not very Democratic to censor 98% of people because 2% of people are want it gone.

the point of explaining the flawed view of language as 'only words' is the notion that some acts having no physical component are thereby harmless. You have more or less explained this discrepancy yourself by distinguishing between the use of words which are offensive and the intent behind words that is meant to modify the effect. Yet as explained this contingency misunderstands the implicit effects of language (in short the correspondence to essential concepts and so on).

"

According to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network there are approx 4.2million Rape Victims in the USA. Bump it up to 5 Million to be on the safer side, even though that number was from 2012 and since 1993 Rape cases have decreased by 50%.
So that's not even .02% of the Population.

I'll return to read the rest shortly but if it follows this trajectory then my reply is to point out this is clearly besides the point. The use of terms which are offensive in themselves and have a bearing on not just the individual but also the relevance of the ideas involved is reason enough to decide if the choice of words are appropriate. Again, when you distinguish between the essential concepts of terminology and its use the latter remains an inherent feature of language processing. In other words the distinction is a false dichotomy which rests of, as I've also said, the flawed assumption that language in itself is inert and only contextually relevant.

Yewthane, you honestly don't understand what you are talking about. The argument is not wether or not words can be interpreted in a way to be offensive. The point is that being offended in and of itself is purely subjective.

This "lowest common denominator" approach is bad in so far as that we have no way of objectively measuring how offended someone is and how valid their reasons are.

At the risk of sounding rude, to all the people who advocate a public ban of words because they might offend someone... just grow thicker skin.

My beloved grandfather died last year, but I don't flip my shit every time I hear the words "death" or "grandfather".

Given your lowest common denominator approach, we would have to conclude that if someone found the words "death" or "grandfather" offensive because their grandfather recently died, the very existence of that single person would be grounds enough for us to ban the words "death" and "grandfather" from public disourse entirely.

Is wanker an "offensive" word? To me personally it's not, I see no reason to be offended by it. Is rape an offensive word to me? In the context of video games, absolutely not and I see no reason to be offended by it.

Now you are saying that there are people who are offended by some of these words and that should be grounds enough to either ban these words altogether or regulate their usage. But you always skip the part in which you demonstrate how exactly you got to that conclusion.

Because the underlying assumption here is that if some people are offended by something, their being offended has to take precedence over my "not being offended" and everyone around these offended people has to alter their behavior in a way to make them feel less offended.

Blatantly ignoring the fact that "being offended" is not some objectively measurable state of mind, sometimes people are offended by literally nothing. In theory there isn't a single thing in this universe that couldn't possibly offend someone. Everything can potentially be offensive in the eyes of some people. So I ask how do you distinguish between a person who just needs to grow thicker skin and a person who is legitimately offended to a point where their being offended has to take precedence over everything else? To a point where some of the people in this thread are even entertaining the idea of outright banning words? Just how.

"

Vakirauta wrote:

What you people don't understand is we are not only talking about the words, but the implications of the act itself.

Fine and what does the act of raping someone and the implications of it have to do with someone using the word in an entirely different context, with an entirely different meaning and entirely different implications?

Perhaps we should outright ban the words "black" or "dark" because some african-americans might feel offended by them, even if they are not used in a racial context.

"I see the colors green, red and blue in this picture... oh and there is also a little bit of... bla... nevermind, I meant to say that some parts of it do not reflect light"

"It's really da... I mean I can't see anything tonight."