Let me guess, the Spanish language needs to change their word for black too, right?
Nope, it's different because it's well understood the language that brought along this term which is pronounced differently and associated towards a color, and the history of the word negro as a terms towards black people.
It never stops being just that one thing.
Well, if people stop making other things, then it will eventually stop at that last thing.
But "hard R" is nothing more than a description of the term
Precisely. Hence why I said "rooted." Now you get it.
Because I'm more than happy to die on the hill of Freedom of Speech.
A game changing graffiti in a game has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution
Freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution
Fuck no. Absolutely not. Freedom of speech is a principle you choose to live by or not. A weapon against government persecution is only one important reason.
I don't think you fully get where the term comes from.
But if you think an inclusion of a bit of graffiti that isn't integral to the game , and was more than likely a bit of graphic that they just threw up on a wall without thinking about it, is some principle to live or die on, you've gotta sort out your priorities
The specific term, freedom of speech, is from the first amendment, specifically written by the government, and that's what I thought was being referenced.
People not liking what is on the screen isn't a violation of human rights.
But if you think an inclusion of a bit of graffiti that isn't integral to the game , and was more than likely a bit of graphic that they just threw up on a wall without thinking about it, is some principle to live or die on, you've gotta sort out your priorities
I was only correcting your false claim. My comment has nothing to do with this game or topic.
A game changing graffiti in a game has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution
Oh, you're one of those retards that doesn't understand the difference between the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech.
Let me give you a little walkthrough: The Amendments are there to PROTECT human rights, not grant them, and through this, this is how individuals can in fact deny another person their human rights. Is slavery a-ok so long as it's done by private entities? No? So why is the denial of free speech any different when done by private actors?
You're awfully determined to stand firm on "this game needs to change to protect the feelings of a very, very small minority group". It's almost impressive how stubborn you hold onto this if it weren't entirely the product of falsely being told from a young age that such a stance is noble.
Delicate sensibilities are meaningless. Stop defending censorship just because you find it irrelevant. If you need a logical fallacy term, it's the fallacy of relative privation. Just because there are worse forms of censorship doesn't negate that this is still censorship too.
Nope, it's different because it's well understood the language that brought along this term which is pronounced differently and associated towards a color, and the history of the word negro as a terms towards black people.
Well, if people stop making other things, then it will eventually stop at that last thing.
Precisely. Hence why I said "rooted." Now you get it.
A game changing graffiti in a game has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution
Fuck no. Absolutely not. Freedom of speech is a principle you choose to live by or not. A weapon against government persecution is only one important reason.
I don't think you fully get where the term comes from.
But if you think an inclusion of a bit of graffiti that isn't integral to the game , and was more than likely a bit of graphic that they just threw up on a wall without thinking about it, is some principle to live or die on, you've gotta sort out your priorities
No, it's pretty clear that you don't understand that human rights are not privileges granted to you through the government. That's statist rhetoric.
The specific term, freedom of speech, is from the first amendment, specifically written by the government, and that's what I thought was being referenced.
People not liking what is on the screen isn't a violation of human rights.
I was only correcting your false claim. My comment has nothing to do with this game or topic.
Freedom of Speech is from the first amendment.
Oh, you're one of those retards that doesn't understand the difference between the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech.
Let me give you a little walkthrough: The Amendments are there to PROTECT human rights, not grant them, and through this, this is how individuals can in fact deny another person their human rights. Is slavery a-ok so long as it's done by private entities? No? So why is the denial of free speech any different when done by private actors?
You're awfully determined to stand firm on "this game needs to change to protect the feelings of a very, very small minority group". It's almost impressive how stubborn you hold onto this if it weren't entirely the product of falsely being told from a young age that such a stance is noble.
Delicate sensibilities are meaningless. Stop defending censorship just because you find it irrelevant. If you need a logical fallacy term, it's the fallacy of relative privation. Just because there are worse forms of censorship doesn't negate that this is still censorship too.
Because it's not violating any human rights. It's a MASSIVE difference from slavery.
Freedom of speech is a human right. That you cannot understand that says a lot about what kind of person you are.