Why telling someone to stop speaking nazi is not discriminatory
#1
The act of calling someone a nazi is not discriminatory. It is a valid, nondiscriminatory term used to refer to someone who adheres to the national socialist ideology, and is in no way connected to the individual's race or heritage. For example, I could refer to Karl Marx as a nazi. Or, in the context of World War II, Winston Churchill referred to Joseph Stalin as being similar to a nazi. Furthermore, the term encompasses a wide array of characteristics that do not directly relate to race. For example, adolf Hitler was Austrian. In addition, the term nazi refers to an ideology and set of beliefs rather than a specific heritage or race, and as such it is not considered to be a slur when used judiciously.

Furthermore, it is not discriminatory to tell someone to stop doing something.... Would you tell someone to stop doing something if it wasn't discriminatory? For example, would you tell a rock to stop being a rock? In addition, the word "Stop" is simply a verb. It has no inherent meaning beyond the definition of the word in the English language.

The statement "Stop speaking nazi" is not discriminatory because it neither directly nor indirectly references the speaker's race or culture. The use of the word "nazi" is a metaphor for an individual with a politically extremist ideology, and not a reference to the speaker's heritage. Without a context involving hatred toward the speaker's heritage, the speaker's background has no bearing on the response "Stop speaking nazi". Additionally, it is not discriminatory to request that somebody stop doing something. The statement "Stop speaking nazi" does not reference any particular race or culture, it simply requests that the listener stops what they are doing. While the statement "Stop speaking nazi" may be offensive to some people, it does not constitute discrimination. Additionally, the term "nazi" does not specifically refer to Germanic peoples or a particular nation; it is a generic term that could apply to any authoritarian, totalitarian regime. If the speaker's heritage is of Germanic origin, that is coincidental, and not discriminatory. If the speaker's heritage is of Germanic origin, that is coincidental, and not discriminatory. Different terms would be required to directly reference the speaker's heritage or race. For example, a statement like "Stop speaking Jewish" could be considered discriminatory toward the speaker's heritage if Jewish people are significantly more likely to speak using this alternative world.
While it is possible to use language in a malicious manner to bully or offend individuals, this instance would not qualify as such. Without directly or indirectly referencing the speaker's race or culture, there is no way to reasonably classify this statement as discriminatory toward the speaker's heritage. Additionally, it is not considered discriminatory to use coarse language in this manner.

In summary, there is nothing discriminatory or bigoted about telling someone to stop speaking nazi. Of course, some people are incapable of understanding even the simplest of facts. If people are so narrow-minded that they can't comprehend something as simple as a fact, then it's likely their minds have been infected by think-pieces and social justice rhetoric to the point where facts no longer matter to them. I am genuinely happy that individuals that consider it discriminatory aren't representative of the human race, because such stupidity and close-mindedness is an epidemic dampening the intellectual progress of mankind as a whole.
#2
[Image: tenor.gif?itemid=18897243]
 
[Image: jUcv1hb.png]
 
The following 5 users Like Lewwings's post:
  • jhayw, Ratatoskrr, Blaz, Pollux, MrMaaze
#3
He was German, he took offence, End of


[Image: andrew-tate-top-g.gif]
The following 1 user Likes Ratatoskrr's post:
  • Blaz
#4
TOMMY TOMMY
#5
(04-07-2021, 10:07 PM)Ratatoskrr Wrote: He was German, he took offence, End of

It does not matter if he took offence.  The term nazi is nondiscriminatory. It doesn't matter if he considers it discriminatory, the term itself and my use of it was not and could not be discriminatory against him in any way. There's nothing discriminatory about calling someone a nazi. Furthermore, there's nothing discriminatory about telling someone to stop saying something. Would you tell a rock to stop being a rock? Finally, it doesn't matter if he took offence. The only thing that matters is if you were discriminating. If you were discriminating, then it's only because he was discriminating against you first. In fact, by taking offence, he was committing an act of discrimination against you. To be more specific, he was engaging in demeanour redolent of that perpetuated by the political left: By taking offence, he was attempting to engage in coercion and exact a change in your words or silence through shame and ostracization.

Is this what we have become? Do we now live in an era where the social justice left can censor someone? Where people are not allowed to speak their mind? Do we live in an era where people, as long as they're part of a politically favored group, can abuse others with slurs and slander and not be held accountable for it?

Finally, if you believe that telling someone to "stop" is discriminatory, then all words are inherently discriminatory. This includes: hello, goodbye, hello there, goodbye there, thank you, you're welcome, nice to meet you, I love you and a slew of other terms. In fact, language as a whole is discriminatory! Do you see how ridiculous your line of thinking is?

The term nazi doesn't refer to a German, it refers to a National Socialist. It doesn't even refer to all Germans; in fact it only refers to an incredibly small percentage of Germans, and an even smaller percentage of people in general. And while there may have been some German casualties in the events of World War II, the word nazi does not refer to all German people; it was not used as an ethnic slur against all German people. It would be the equivalent of referring to a British soldier of the War of 1812 as a Yankee, or referring to a communist as a Bolshevik. Or, if you're referring to a specific individual, it would be the equivalent of calling Hitler himself being referred to as a German.

These words are not slurs, but rather terms. They have very specific meanings that describe very specific traits and characteristics without containing any additional, associated meanings. It would be no different than referring to someone from Arizona as a Mormon, or someone from ancient Greece as a Greek. In fact, many people who self-identify as Mormon have taken offence to the term, despite it being used in a historically accurate manner; however, they do not refer to themselves as anything other than Mormons. It is only bigoted people who take it upon themselves to redefine words and assign them secondary meanings in order to justify their own bigotry.
#6
(04-07-2021, 10:20 PM)Academy Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 10:07 PM)Ratatoskrr Wrote: Snip

Snip

[Image: b78.jpg]
 
[Image: jUcv1hb.png]
 
#7
(04-07-2021, 10:07 PM)Ratatoskrr Wrote: He was German, he took offence, End of
Happy to hear that it's all it takes to get a 7 day ban.
#8
Enzymes are proteins that act as biological catalysts. Catalysts accelerate chemical reactions. The molecules upon which enzymes may act are called substrates, and the enzyme converts the substrates into different molecules known as products.
#9
let me put this in monke language

bad brown monke do bad thing long long ago

but now it is normal time, and orange monkey tell good brown monke he's a bad brown monke for something he didnt do, is very unfair on good brown monke and make him upset. good brown monke not want to be compared to evil bad brown monke, because they nothing alike, and good brown monke never do bad thing
[Image: jgUSzW0.png]
Have I helped you or made an epic statement that has blown your mind and turned the tables?
Gimme a sexy lil rep here!
The following 1 user Likes Blaz's post:
  • MrMaaze
#10
If you have a look at some recent bans regarding racism/discrimination. The max ban length has been 48h. This shows that there is either an irregular punishment for this offence among admins or that Ratatoskrr has shown favoritism towards Jay and contempt towards me and Cherno.

[Image: PHdxqR5.png]
[Image: VzKrwGL.png]
[Image: z1EIIMi.png]

These are all recent examples of obvious and true discrimination (Racism/homophobia). None of them have received more than 2d bans. How can you still defend the 7d ban I as a new player on the server got for an utter that was barely even discriminatory (at least not as obvious as examples mentioned above)? And if you read my above posts you will learn how it's not even discriminatory at all.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)