Players Who Report Your Chat Online

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't continue. I've read a good 50 or so of these posts and put a few replys in. I wanted to be another voice of support, though after reading several of your posts you are obviously strong enough to not specifically require it.

Political Correctness is for politicians. Right or wrong, anyone can say anything they like. Right or wrong, anyone can punch that person in the teeth. Right or wrong, they can be punched back, sued in civil court or whatever.

Keep on making your jokes. You will without my support, but hey.

BTW, I loved the Special Ed line in the middle there too.

YEAAAHHHH I've got one of a kind lady! I'm one of a kind lady!

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh heh, hilarious. Actually, it was "yaaah, I've got a full house lady!" *shows pair of 2's*

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't really get your chat revolked for this did you?

KC

[/ QUOTE ]

It's happened before, for the "BIG HARD WEINA" comments....whoops!

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh heh(not directed at YOU, just some funny pics)

[mmcd]

1) It doesn't matter whether you THINK it is offensive or MEANT it to be offensive. If people find it offensive (whether they are Asian or not . . in this case), then it IS offensive.

I find your post to be offensive, therefore it is offensive.

I am going to have to have to go ahead and report you to the moderator, so hopefully I won't have to read such clearly offensive posts in the future.


"Offensive" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword that people/groups of people use in an attempt to curtail the expression of ideas that they happen to not like.

Liberals are quick to defend people's rights to burn the flag, protest the government, or walk around outside an upscale clothing store wielding signs that say "Fur is Murder" despite the fact that many people are "offended" by these types of things, but as soon as someone says something that is not "politically correct" they are quick to break out the term "offensive" and seek to supress the speech.

Religious right-type conservatives are guilty of doing the same thing based upon this "family values" and "traditional morality" nonsense rather than "political correctness".

The fact of the matter is that words or just words, nothing less, nothing more. The fact that I don't like hearing or reading particular words or combinations of words doesn't mean that they shouldn't be or spoken or written.

"Offensive" is nothing more than a shameful attempt by people to objectively condemn ideas or words that they subjectively dislike.

In this case the poker site can do whatever the hell they want because (1) it says so in their terms of service, and (2) even if it didn't, they are beyond the reach of any authorities whatsoever. They could just as easily freeze the accounts of anybody that e-mails them with complaints because they dislike whiners.

I find it amusing how many people in this thread are so quick to point out how offensive "ROR" is, and then go on to call the guy an ignorant small minded insecure idiotic racist douchebag because he doesn't agree with them. ROR.

[patient77]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It doesn't matter whether you THINK it is offensive or MEANT it to be offensive. If people find it offensive (whether they are Asian or not . . in this case), then it IS offensive.

I find your post to be offensive, therefore it is offensive.

I am going to have to have to go ahead and report you to the moderator, so hopefully I won't have to read such clearly offensive posts in the future.


"Offensive" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword that people/groups of people use in an attempt to curtail the expression of ideas that they happen to not like.

Liberals are quick to defend people's rights to burn the flag, protest the government, or walk around outside an upscale clothing store wielding signs that say "Fur is Murder" despite the fact that many people are "offended" by these types of things, but as soon as someone says something that is not "politically correct" they are quick to break out the term "offensive" and seek to supress the speech.

Religious right-type conservatives are guilty of doing the same thing based upon this "family values" and "traditional morality" nonsense rather than "political correctness".

The fact of the matter is that words or just words, nothing less, nothing more. The fact that I don't like hearing or reading particular words or combinations of words doesn't mean that they shouldn't be or spoken or written.

"Offensive" is nothing more than a shameful attempt by people to objectively condemn ideas or words that they subjectively dislike.

In this case the poker site can do whatever the hell they want because (1) it says so in their terms of service, and (2) even if it didn't, they are beyond the reach of any authorities whatsoever. They could just as easily freeze the accounts of anybody that e-mails them with complaints because they dislike whiners.

I find it amusing how many people in this thread are so quick to point out how offensive "ROR" is, and then go on to call the guy an ignorant small minded insecure idiotic racist douchebag because he doesn't agree with them. ROR.

[/ QUOTE ]


I completely agree mmcd.... By the way, when is our circle jerk with grandgnu scheduled for, tomorrow at nine? us faggots gotta stick together..... i gotta go start demeaning jews, blacks, arabs, asians, and mexicans, but in a joking way tomorrow afternoon, so i may be late. after all, anyone who finds my humor or behavior offensive is just a right wing type conversative who can kiss our asses. good thing we can go around ridiculing anyone we want because no combination of words put together should ever be taken offensively and we can blame them for supressing our right to free speech.

one question that has not been answered by any of us. why do we think it's okay to make racial jokes on an anonymous online poker chat, but none of us will do it in public at a live game? what makes it okay to do so? i need to know this answer so that i can argue with all the guys who call me a pussy.

patient77

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It doesn't matter whether you THINK it is offensive or MEANT it to be offensive. If people find it offensive (whether they are Asian or not . . in this case), then it IS offensive.

I find your post to be offensive, therefore it is offensive.

I am going to have to have to go ahead and report you to the moderator, so hopefully I won't have to read such clearly offensive posts in the future.


"Offensive" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword that people/groups of people use in an attempt to curtail the expression of ideas that they happen to not like.

Liberals are quick to defend people's rights to burn the flag, protest the government, or walk around outside an upscale clothing store wielding signs that say "Fur is Murder" despite the fact that many people are "offended" by these types of things, but as soon as someone says something that is not "politically correct" they are quick to break out the term "offensive" and seek to supress the speech.

Religious right-type conservatives are guilty of doing the same thing based upon this "family values" and "traditional morality" nonsense rather than "political correctness".

The fact of the matter is that words or just words, nothing less, nothing more. The fact that I don't like hearing or reading particular words or combinations of words doesn't mean that they shouldn't be or spoken or written.

"Offensive" is nothing more than a shameful attempt by people to objectively condemn ideas or words that they subjectively dislike.

In this case the poker site can do whatever the hell they want because (1) it says so in their terms of service, and (2) even if it didn't, they are beyond the reach of any authorities whatsoever. They could just as easily freeze the accounts of anybody that e-mails them with complaints because they dislike whiners.

I find it amusing how many people in this thread are so quick to point out how offensive "ROR" is, and then go on to call the guy an ignorant small minded insecure idiotic racist douchebag because he doesn't agree with them. ROR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously trying to compare acts of protest such as flag burning and fur is murder junk with what this guy does? As you say, those are the expression of ideas, which is why they are upheld by the supreme court. Please enlighten me as to what socially redeaming expression of ideas is going on here.

[busguy]

I didn't think it was possible, but you might actually be a bigger moron than Mr. Gnu.

Did you even read this guy's post :

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why I'm posting in this thread. I've been ignoring it and skimming it alternatively throughout the day, all the while hoping it would go away but it hasn't so he comes my entry that will not change a single mind...

OK, find any reputable organization in the U.S. This could be a company, a school, a community organization, you name it. They probably have a published harrassment policy and you, grandgnu, would certainly be in violation of it. It doesn't matter what your interpretation of the facts are or belief regarding people's ridiculously thin, lilly livered, PC skin, if you made these comments within earshot of any person who was in any way incensed by your comments, you would have to answer some questions and could likely get fired if it happened at work. No kidding, this is not a joke and it's not debateable if you live in public society within the USA.

Take a workplace example: if you worked for me and were talking with a buddy over a cubicle wall or on your lunch break, just havin' a little fun, blowin' off some steam and one person happened to be walking by and happened to hear your voice and took the slightest offence at your comments, and they came to me with a complaint I would have to act. This isn't a moral responsibility or loyalty to any PC ideal, its a bona fide legal responsibility. I would probably go to the Human Resource department and relay what I'd been told; they would immediately begin a thourough investigation or expose the company to a lawsuit that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. The investigation would consist of individually interviewing each of the parties concerned (the complaintant, you and your buddy along with any other witnesses) you would most definately be reprimanded and potentially fired on the spot. In any case, you would probably be subject to summary dismissal at the first sign of trouble in the future.

You can believe this or not and you can defend yourself to the death; I don't expect this to make a difference for you but the fact is that it's the way the world works today.

Yes, I know Party Poker or whatever site you play on is in another country and you aren't subject to the same policies you would find in a typical US institution but societies norms remain and the bottom line is this: If anyone is offended by your comments, then they are offensive.
I'm not going to spell check this, I've already wasted more of my time than I ever hoped, so just deal.



[/ QUOTE ]

I can appreciate your point that in a PC world things can get taken to the extreme end of the ridiculous scale. I don't agree with it but I can appreciate where you are coming from. But that is not the point. The point to both you and Mr Gnu is that it really doesn't matter what you, he or I think on this matter. Just because you think it is wrong doesn't change the fact that the LAW is on the side of the people who find it offensive. The reason we have these laws is because someone at some point in time thought, it was important enough to protect people's right to not feel discriminated against, that they would enact laws against it, so as not to leave it open to debate like we are doing here.

You have a right to be a red-neck. Mr Gnu has a right to be an idiot. But if either of you get caught uttering this kind of crap by the wrong person you MAY find yourself being charged for breaking a LAW.

As the poster above said. Any Governement office, school, work place or busness will want to protect themselves from being in violation of discrimmination laws and as a result WILL ban or bar you from saying or doing what you want if it could be taken as offensive or discriminitory by ANYONE. Not a majority, not an average, but rather by ANYONE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND

It is not only the majority of posters here that say you are wrong. It is the LAW that says you are wrong and until these laws are repeeld (?) or changed, they are right, and you sir, are wrong.

busguy

[mmcd]

Are you seriously trying to compare acts of protest such as flag burning and fur is murder junk with what this guy does? As you say, those are the expression of ideas, which is why they are upheld by the supreme court. Please enlighten me as to what socially redeaming expression of ideas is going on here.


Since when does speech have to be "socially redeeming".

Despite your personal feelings, "ROR" is not obscenity. You'd have to be pretty fcuked up to find that ROR tends to appeal to the prurient interest. Whether it has any socially redeeming value is completely irrelevant.

The Supreme Court said it is o.k. to burn an American flag in the middle of Texas during the Republican National convention ("offensive"?) and they have also said it's o.k. for nazis to hold a parade in Skokie, Ill. ("offensive"?)

You can't regulate speech based upon whether it has "redeeming value" based upon your (or anyone elses for that matter) social conventions.

"ROR" might offend the sensibilities of Asians or the "P.C." crowd or any random person or group.

Burning an American flag might offend the sensibilities of veterans, families of people that died in wars, nationalists, or any random person or group.

"Fur is Murder" signs might offend the sensibilities of store owners, fur coat manufacturers, people who wear fur coats, or any other random person or group.

Protesters might offend the sensibilities of whoever they are protesting against, people who find protests whiney and distasteful, or any other random person or group.


None of the above offend my sensibilities because I really don't care what ideas or words anyone else chooses to express. It's not like I'm going to keel over and drop dead or have some sort of psychological breakdown because someone says or writes something I don't like.

If someone is typing something into the chat in an online poker game, I can read it, or not. I can mute them, or not.

The one thing I won't do is type up an e-mail to the poker site asking them to revoke someones chat. I don't care what they say or how offended I am by it.

BTW, your tone of "How can you compare flag burning with ROR?" perfectly illustrates the point of the post you were responding to. I'm sure there are some WWII veterans that would ask me the exact same question.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously trying to compare acts of protest such as flag burning and fur is murder junk with what this guy does? As you say, those are the expression of ideas, which is why they are upheld by the supreme court. Please enlighten me as to what socially redeaming expression of ideas is going on here.


Since when does speech have to be "socially redeeming".

Despite your personal feelings, "ROR" is not obscenity. You'd have to be pretty fcuked up to find that ROR tends to appeal to the prurient interest. Whether it has any socially redeeming value is completely irrelevant.

The Supreme Court said it is o.k. to burn an American flag in the middle of Texas during the Republican National convention ("offensive"?) and they have also said it's o.k. for nazis to hold a parade in Skokie, Ill. ("offensive"?)

You can't regulate speech based upon whether it has "redeeming value" based upon your (or anyone elses for that matter) social conventions.

"ROR" might offend the sensibilities of Asians or the "P.C." crowd or any random person or group.

Burning an American flag might offend the sensibilities of veterans, families of people that died in wars, nationalists, or any random person or group.

"Fur is Murder" signs might offend the sensibilities of store owners, fur coat manufacturers, people who wear fur coats, or any other random person or group.

Protesters might offend the sensibilities of whoever they are protesting against, people who find protests whiney and distasteful, or any other random person or group.


None of the above offend my sensibilities because I really don't care what ideas or words anyone else chooses to express. It's not like I'm going to keel over and drop dead or have some sort of psychological breakdown because someone says or writes something I don't like.

If someone is typing something into the chat in an online poker game, I can read it, or not. I can mute them, or not.

The one thing I won't do is type up an e-mail to the poker site asking them to revoke someones chat. I don't care what they say or how offended I am by it.

BTW, your tone of "How can you compare flag burning with ROR?" perfectly illustrates the point of the post you were responding to. I'm sure there are some WWII veterans that would ask me the exact same question.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes no difference in terms of Strict Scrutiny as something would have to be deemed obscene, but as a moral issue, Burning a flag and marching with a KKK outfit (but no hood in NYC) is a form of protest, while typing all the ROR crap is just being an ass for no reason.

[mmcd]

Maybe he's protesting people who are too easily offended.
That's often the point of irreverent humor.