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

"

I never claimed that the various definitions of words are subjective. And wether or not they are is irrelevant anyway. My point was that how we react to words and our being offended or not being offended by specific words is purely subjective.

inasmuch as words have essential meaning it is that relevance which affects all individuals. The salience of which is determined by ideas which the terms refer to; therefore using specific terms in an indifferent manner can be both naturally offensive and misconstrues the associated significance of the issues involved.

"

Your argument, as I understand it, is that some people have certain negative psychological reactions to specific words and we should thus ban these words. My counter-argument is that the vast majority of people (myself included) do not share these same reactions. The word "rape" simply doesn't bother me at all. Unless people are making rape jokes in the presence of someone who they know got raped or specifically insulting rape victims, there is no context in which we could just "ban" the word from everyday conversations. (again I just get the impression that you want to play "word police", what's next thought crimes?)

What matters here IS the context, when someone in CS kills me and goes "you just got raped", everyone understands that the person isn't refering to the act of physically raping me. I simply shrug it off and move on.

as I have explained many times over, this is a misrepresentation of how language functions, the 'just words' claim. The basic problem with this position is the view that words are in effect latent or neutral, yet words holds specific conceptual associations and it is these which define the meaning that is processed whether used in a serious or less than serious sense the essential meaning still defines the significance of its use. That is the very reason underlying the prevalence of claiming someone just got 'raped' in a computer game or any other situation outside of the literal sense. The same with swear words that are used to denote offensive meaning. And contrary to the claim these words have no effect on individuals I have also already explained that both conceptually and physiologically these words affect everyone.

there is no mysterious force in play here, it is the basic operation of language to utilise associated concepts to facilitate comprehension and the subsequent construction of meaning. This is why, as I continue to repeat, language is not mere words or exclusively contextual, fundamentally language is conceptual (context being contingent on concepts etc).

furthermore, banning a word is not the same as recognising it's rightful and socially mindful use, the casual use of any offensive terminology is in itself inappropriate, though as I have said in most cases individuals really are not given much opportunity to know any better in these matters.

"

This almost nazistic approach of wanting to ban words from everyday conversations is shocking to me, honestly....Or here is a nice analogy, replace the word rape with the word owned ("I own you"), shouldn't that word be banned too given that it is highly insulting to slaves and the person using the phrase "I owned you" is advocating slavery?

it is in fact terribly insensitive yet thankfully not as explicitly obvious as in the case of rape, which refers to a specific instance of abuse, whereas 'being owned' does not explicitly refer to slavery, although I personally would be mindful of the potential connotations, especially in light of the functions of language described. Once again, I have not said these words should be banned, rather that the common instances of their usage have become insensitive and there are good reasons to consider if this use is fair or reasonable in mind of the various issues outlined (and reiterated).

finally, for the reasons given then I can more or less conclude that anyone so inclined can further look into the ideas explained to consider for themselves what is sensible to assume about these issues and their own actions.

"

SlixSC wrote:

I just fundamentally cannot agree with that argument, I'm sorry. Never once when someone said the words "get raped" to me in Counter Strike did I feel that they were putting themself in some kind of metaphorical position of power. I just shrugged it off. And I most certainly didn't feel offended or put in a position of utter weakness (what a load of nonsense).

My perception is totally different to yours here and this again goes back to one of the points I made earlier. Not everyone is the same, the argument presented in this thread presupposes that we all feel the same way about this. But, I reiterate, that's bullshit.

I mean, just to put this out there. You are saying I'm missing the point by giving your subjective explanation as to why "rape" is more offensive to you than other words that are commonly used to insult people. Bear in mind that in the very first paragraph of the post to which you replied I said exactly this:

"being offended in and of itself is purely subjective"

Doesn't that make your post just seem strange and nonsensical in the extreme?

You are giving me your subjective reasons for why you think rape is more offensive than other words (to you) in order to demonstrate that I'm missing the point with my statement that "being offended is subjective".

Which actually proves my point.

And I know for a fact that your reasons are subjective, simply because I (and many others) disagree with them.

If you think I was being subjective you still miss the point. The meaning of the word rape is not subjective. How people react to it is but the word itself is clearly defined.
Same goes for its metaphorical meaning. Of course people react to it differently. But again, why the need to say it at all?

This is just a guess but I think most people who have not ever been raped would find this expression to be in rather bad taste, at least.
Most people - and this is really a wild guess now - who have actually been raped would feel at least uncomfortable hearing that word said casually in a context like CS.

But some of them would actually be triggered, meaning forced to relive in their memory a most agonizing and traumatic experience.
This is the potential of this expression, a potential which is there because of its literal meaning for one thing but also because of the parallels in scenario: power vs. lack of power.

And as a rape victim in the OP's link said: "People don't advertize having been raped."
Even when they are your best friends. So why say it at all?

"

Jojas wrote:

If you think I was being subjective you still miss the point. The meaning of the word rape is not subjective. How people react to it is but the word itself is clearly defined.
Same goes for its metaphorical meaning. Of course people react to it differently. But again, why the need to say it at all?

I suppose that you also consider the expression "A piece of cake" to be clearly defined and one of the definitions is certainly not "Something that is easy to do". Or maybe just maybe, the meaning of different group of words even if the group only contains one word, can change?

"

Jojas wrote:

This is just a guess but I think most people who have not ever been raped would find this expression to be in rather bad taste, at least.
Most people - and this is really a wild guess now - who have actually been raped would feel at least uncomfortable hearing that word said casually in a context like CS.

I find it be very bad taste to even argue this on a forum pertaining to an online game.

"

But some of them would actually be triggered, meaning forced to relive in their memory a most agonizing and traumatic experience.
This is the potential of this expression, a potential which is there because of its literal meaning for one thing but also because of the parallels in scenario: power vs. lack of power.

And as a rape victim in the OP's link said: "People don't advertize having been raped."
Even when they are your best friends. So why say it at all?

And some would certainly be forced to experience memories of traumatic events triggered by people saying "own", "asshole", "fiddlesticks" and "pokemon". So why say it at all?

"

Yewthane wrote:

as I have explained many times over, this is a misrepresentation of how language functions, the 'just words' claim. The basic problem with this position is the view that words are in effect latent or neutral, yet words holds specific conceptual associations and it is these which define the meaning that is processed whether used in a serious or less than serious sense the essential meaning still defines the significance of its use.

First of all, I honestly think you should make your sentences a little more comprehensibe. Having to read overly long sentences with overly complex sentence-structuring is really frustrating.

And what you are saying here is complete bullshit. Right, when I meet a buddy of mine and greet him with "hello, you twat." it's really not the context that gives the word it's meaning but rather the concept behind it. Are you actually serious about this? As if to imply that there is no difference in calling my friend a twat in a friendly manner and actually insulting someone with the same word, because "it's the same word after all."

You can continue to make convoluted and pointless arguments to substantiate this idea but it will always be bullshit.

It almost feels to me like you are just trolling honestly, but thank you for sharing your wisdom with me. This is like bashing my head against a wall, so I'm done here.

@mazul: I don't want to do this quotewars thing but I don't understand AT ALL what your problem is here. I don't actually understand what you even mean with some things.

"

mazul wrote:

I suppose that you also consider the expression "A piece of cake" to be clearly defined and one of the definitions is certainly not "Something that is easy to do". Or maybe just maybe, the meaning of different group of words even if the group only contains one word, can change?

Yes, I consider the expression "A piece of cake" to be clearly defined. It has a literal meaning and a metaphorical one and the latter one certainly IS "Something that is easy to do" (?)

Of course the meaning of words can change. But what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting if more people keep saying "rape" more often then one of these days it will have a different meaning? Sorry, I don't get you.
And what is a group of words that contains only one word? A word?

"

I find it be very bad taste to even argue this on a forum pertaining to an online game.

Why? This is a discussion about the expression being basically harmless. I tried to argue that it is not. How else could I do it?

"

And some would certainly be forced to experience memories of traumatic events triggered by people saying "own", "asshole", "fiddlesticks" and "pokemon". So why say it at all?

I'm sorry but are being deliberatly daft?

"

Jojas wrote:

Of course the meaning of words can change. But what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting if more people keep saying "rape" more often then one of these days it will have a different meaning?

Sorry, but I have to chime in one more time before I finally leave this thread, because that is EXACTLY what I was explaining in one of my earlier posts.

This is how language evolves. A few hundred years ago, the word bastard was one of the most offensive words you could possibly use, it was originally only refering to a child whose birth lacked legal legitimacy. Which was a terrible insult only up until a few hundred years ago.

But what you and Yewthane don't seem to get (and you even admit it) is that words can have different meanings in different contexts. Today the word is mostly used to describe a person that you simply do not like. It's not all that offensive anymore, because the common usage and it's definition has changed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard

Merriam Webster recognizes this fact, you apparently do not.

Similarly, and I know I'm repeating myself again, when gamers use the word rape, it does not mean "physically raping another person" but simply "beating or killing another person ingame".

Different meaning, in a different context. Now you guys can keep pretending that, that is simply not true and that the only real definition of the word is it's original meaning and that conversational context doesn't matter. But make no mistake here, people know that you are either bullshiting on purpose or you simply don't understand how language works.

"

Jojas wrote:

@mazul: I don't want to do this quotewars thing but I don't understand AT ALL what your problem is here. I don't actually understand what you even mean with some things.

"

mazul wrote:

I suppose that you also consider the expression "A piece of cake" to be clearly defined and one of the definitions is certainly not "Something that is easy to do". Or maybe just maybe, the meaning of different group of words even if the group only contains one word, can change?

Yes, I consider the expression "A piece of cake" to be clearly defined. It has a literal meaning and a metaphorical one and the latter one certainly IS "Something that is easy to do" (?)

Of course the meaning of words can change. But what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting if more people keep saying "rape" more often then one of these days it will have a different meaning? Sorry, I don't get you.
And what is a group of words that contains only one word? A word?

What if a "new" meaning of "to rape" is "to beat someone in an overwhelming manner in a competition" has become accepted just like "piece of cake" acquired it's "new" meaning once upon a time?

"

I find it be very bad taste to even argue this on a forum pertaining to an online game.

"

Why? This is a discussion about the expression being basically harmless. I tried to argue that it is not. How else could I do it?

Because I find it to be a waste of time and thus inferior to other ways in which that very same time could have been spent. Point being: it shouldn't matter what people find to be bad taste since that is completely subjective.

"

"

And some would certainly be forced to experience memories of traumatic events triggered by people saying "own", "asshole", "fiddlesticks" and "pokemon". So why say it at all?

I'm sorry but are being deliberatly daft?

If one is to censor oneself based on how what one says may cause a person to relive a traumatic event, one should also consider the cases I mentioned because those too can cause people to relive such events. You don't need to express yourself through the internet to survive, you can decide to be completely mute in that sense.

@SlixSC: I don't think anybody in this thread ever said that when you say something like "I raped you" in an online-game, it is meant to be taken literally. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

What counts is NOT what the person who says it means to say.
What counts is how it can be perceived. And there are certain words which have the potential to TRIGGER. This is not some fancy bullshit word. Can it be that you don't know what it means?

"

Jojas wrote:

@SlixSC: I don't think anybody in this thread ever said that when you say something like "I raped you" in an online-game, it is meant to be taken literally. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

What counts is NOT what the person who says it means to say.
What counts is how it can be perceived. And there are certain words which have the potential to TRIGGER. This is not some fancy bullshit word. Can it be that you don't know what it means?

I assure you that "asshole", "pokemon" and "fiddlesticks" all have the potential to trigger. Hell even speaking in English may trigger nightmares among people whose families died in a drone attack.

No, unless you are specifically conditioned for these words to be triggerwords (or under some really, really, REALLY weird circumstances), they are not.