Censorship happens in the blink of an eye

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
From official tournaments. Official tournaments always have rules, beyond basic rules of the game.
yes, they had rules that worked for decades until the PC movement entered the picture and everyones skin became paper thin.
even from your perspective, why should a word be banned? dont you understand that if one bans a word then there cannot be any dialogue between two people about it? if the left really wanted to end racism and all of the other -isms that they think up, why should we ban words when we could simply disarm the power associated with them? words inherently have no power. people give them power by labeling them "bad" or "offensive". banning them makes them even more powerful. allowing them to be said disarms them completely.
children grasp this concept-- put an object on the table and tell a 6 year old that the object is not important. put a different object in drawer and tell him or her that its very dangerous and powerful. then see what the child reaches for.

If you want to use cum and shemale in your home games, no one is going to stop you.
thanks for telling me what i can do in my own house... for now...

There's a lot of things to be concerned about, especially as far as censorship goes... The Scrabble thing is entirely a non-issue though.
i disagree. every instance of censorship and infringement upon the first amendment hurts EVERYONE. it needs to be called out loud and clear. for the right and left. we are in danger of losing our right to freedom of speech-- when that disappears under whatever premise ( PC culture, jess` fascist/trump censorship of anarchist/anti-fascist FB/social media groups, disagreeing with the official CDC/WHO BS-19 narrative, etc.) we are completely finished.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
i checked that article. on the surface, i agree. before making a decision, i would ask if these groups expressly advocated for violence (BLM? antifa? on the whole, not the most peace-loving groups), but the article never mentions it. however, i do know FB and YT want to consolidate and control the public information stream and remove everything from non-official sources (right AND left).
until i hear specific evidence against them, i support their right to remain there 100%.
They were from what I understand independent journalistic type groups (and the pages that followed them) and I haven’t heard a single allegation that they were promoting violence. Even if they were, again I think that’s a very grey area that heavily depends on a lot of factors outside of the content in question. Such as intent and means for starts.
 
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
yes, they had rules that worked for decades until the PC movement entered the picture and everyones skin became paper thin.
even from your perspective, why should a word be banned?
In general, words shouldn't be banned. But competitive-level Scrabble isn't a general thing... It's a very specfic, apparently currated thing, with a list of banned words that predates and has removed previously banned words since they've developed unoffensive definitions.

More importantly, Scrabble hasn't published slurs in its official dictionaries since 1994...

dont you understand that if one bans a word then there cannot be any dialogue between two people about it? if the left really wanted to end racism and all of the other -isms that they think up, why should we ban words when we could simply disarm the power associated with them? words inherently have no power. people give them power by labeling them "bad" or "offensive". banning them makes them even more powerful. allowing them to be said disarms them completely.
Here's the thing... Some words will always be hurtful, at least in most circumstances. Should they be "banned"? ,No. Absolutely not, especially not buy the state... But they also probably shouldn't be used in a Scrabble tournament, either... But how much conversation are you going to have over "shitstorm" and "cum"? People are assuming the "offensive" words that were banned were just slurs... But having found the list... Well, most aren't. Honkey.

children grasp this concept-- put an object on the table and tell a 6 year old that the object is not important. put a different object in drawer and tell him or her that its very dangerous and powerful. then see what the child reaches for.
Children are also... Children. They don't understand things. . But there comes a time, that if you want to fight for your right to use slurs, to supposedly destroy their harmful meaning... That's a weird hill to die on.


thanks for telling me what i can do in my own house... for now...
When the Scrabble gestapo come in and put a gun to your head for using "shitstorm", I'll fight with you.

i disagree. every instance of censorship and infringement upon the first amendment hurts EVERYONE. it needs to be called out loud and clear. for the right and left. we are in danger of losing our right to freedom of speech-- when that disappears under whatever premise ( PC culture, jess` fascist/trump censorship of anarchist/anti-fascist FB/social media groups, disagreeing with the official CDC/WHO BS-19 narrative, etc.) we are completely finished.
Scrabble saying "you can't use these words in officially sanctioned tournaments" isn't censorship though. No more than the Pokemon Company saying "this year, you can only use these specific creatures in the video game tournament or cards from these sets in the card game tournyment". It's codified rules for a very specific thing.
 
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
i checked that article. on the surface, i agree. before making a decision, i would ask if these groups expressly advocated for violence (BLM? antifa? on the whole, not the most peace-loving groups), but the article never mentions it. however, i do know FB and YT want to consolidate and control the public information stream and remove everything from non-official sources (right AND left).
until i hear specific evidence against them, i support their right to remain there 100%.
No one is going to expressly advocate violence, since that speech was never protected by the 1st Amendment, and being familiar with CrimethInc... They've never explicitly condoned violence. However, as an anarchist collective, they are certainly going to choose to side with the violent oppressed over violent oppressors. (A thing to remember; anarchists tend to believe the state is inherently violent.)
 

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
383
I heard someone say that after awhile the pollsters have to start being accurate because it’s their reputation on the line. No one believes the biden is winning polls anyway.
No one except the RNC, every analyst on the planet, and likely trump himself.
Lol...from what I know it’s the opposite. Most people who wanted a job had one...that’s how good trump is!
That's simply not true, but don't let reality get in the way of your idolization of your Dear Leader. We'll all see come November.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
No one except the RNC, every analyst on the planet, and likely trump himself.

That's simply not true, but don't let reality get in the way of your idolization of your Dear Leader. We'll all see come November.
Trump knows he’s winning.

It simply was true...he gave us the lowest unemployment in 50 years...that’s when the dems knew he couldn’t be beat. And he still can’t be beat. What are biden’s claims to fame after 40 something years in government? Kissing China’s butt...making deals for his son to get wealthy? Dude doesn’t have a prayer.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Fuck you and the burro you rode on.” There it is. These are the words of the “prestigious” organization that wants to keep us safe from dangerous language.
I haven't read the whole thread yet so i dont know if im being redundant, but i just had to comment.

This right here, is a perfect example of woke logic. I've seen videos where they're slinging the f word left and right but then say something like "trigger warning" before saying something like "committed suicide" when discussing some one who factually did commit suicide, for example.

Or exposing children to lewd acts is fine, but you better not "misgender" or "dead name" someone.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
People don’t boycott something unless they have a goal bigger then their own personal non involvement. That’s inherent in the definition of boycott.

If your only motivation was personal you wouldn’t call it a boycott or make any public statements regarding it. You just wouldn’t fuck with it. There’s a million things I don’t fuck with because I don’t like or agree with them. I don’t call that a boycott. No one in their right mind would.
Must be that I'm not in my "right mind" but when a company does something i don't agree with i absolutely do stop supporting them, i don't make a public statement about it, and i do refer to it as a "boycott" within my (small) social circle.
 

Awoken2

Superstar
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
6,207
The whole Russell Brand story is just a distraction, a well engineered distraction as the new Online Safety Bill becomes law in the UK from next week.

The top comnent from the following video is probably all you need to know about the bill, it states....

The Online Safety Bill- making it safer for the Government to quell dissent.


1984 here we come!

And there will be no resistance....whatsoever, here is the reason why.

 
Top