[Petrarch]

It's always unfortunate and a shame when things come to this point, but it's never done lightly or on a whim. Strathkin had ample chances and opportunity to cool his jets to continue in the UFP. Alas, a downward spiral continued, lines got crossed last night and it reached a point of no return.

[Novalance]

Wackadoodle. that is all

[Saelanna]

It’s always a shame when things come to this; Strathkin’s downward spiral began some time ago and, despite our efforts to help and advise him, his behaviour towards other members continued to deteriorate. He’s said some hateful and unforgivable things recently and, sadly, his removal from our community was the only end this episode was ever going to have. He obviously has his own demons that he will have to face in his world outside the UFP, I wish him well with that.

[Josh Broughm]

Wow. He must've had some mental break...or something.

Good riddance to this POS.

[aceman67]

We are not entitled to encroach on people's expression or feelings. If they hate, we do not teach them not to hate. It's their free right to hate. Or to discriminate. Discrimination becomes a risk when the one doing the supposed discrimination is in a position of power and prone to abuse the hated/discriminated. Here we had exactly the reverse roles.

I have to vehemently disagree with you on that point.

Your freedom of expression and speech guaranteed under most nation's legal frameworks only protect you from the government censoring your criticism of said government and furthermore only extends to the point where it does not encroach on the rights of others.

Freedom of Speech and Expression is not free. It is paid for by those that have come before and will come after that have put their lives on the line or given all. It is also paid by taking responsibility for your actions and what you say.

You (hypothetical) can be the most hateful being on the planet and spout the most disgusting things imaginable, but it would be perfectly legal for your employer to fire you for being a business/financial/legal liability.

You (again, hypothetical) can put a stage on your front lawn and start reading off Mein Kampf at max volume for everyone on your neighbourhood to hear, but I would be perfectly within my rights as a neighbour to call the police and have that activity shut down as a breach of the peace, because I have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of my abode, and your actions infringe on that. It would all be perfectly legal.

Discrimination is always a risk whenever it is allowed to take root and flourish. It doesn't have to be perpetrated by someone in authority or high standing. Humans are highly social creatures; when we see a large enough group doing something, it's in our instincts to also perform that action. It is a social infection and plague that is difficult to root out and destroy.

I'm the grandson of a Polish Jew (his Jewish family line died with him, as only Jewish ancestry is inherited from the mother) and a Latter Day Saint (Mormon, look up Missouri Executive Order 44), my family are no strangers to discrimination, and I oppose it wherever I find it.

It is unacceptable under any circumstance.

[Lars2510]

Got to jump in and say...

It's all very well being free to express your views. Thats all fine and dandy. It's when those views are imposed on other people, or affect other people that the issues start. And that should never be allowed. And from what I can tell, that was absolutely what was happening. He got quite nasty by the looks of it, so was definitely impeding OUR right to safety, mutual respect, equality etc.

[casualsto]

I have to vehemently disagree with you on that point.

Your freedom of expression and speech guaranteed under most nation's legal frameworks only protect you from the government censoring your criticism of said government and furthermore only extends to the point where it does not encroach on the rights of others.

Freedom of Speech and Expression is not free. It is paid for by those that have come before and will come after that have put their lives on the line or given all. It is also paid by taking responsibility for your actions and what you say.

You (hypothetical) can be the most hateful being on the planet and spout the most disgusting things imaginable, but it would be perfectly legal for your employer to fire you for being a business/financial/legal liability.

You (again, hypothetical) can put a stage on your front lawn and start reading off Mein Kampf at max volume for everyone on your neighbourhood to hear, but I would be perfectly within my rights as a neighbour to call the police and have that activity shut down as a breach of the peace, because I have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of my abode, and your actions infringe on that. It would all be perfectly legal.

Discrimination is always a risk whenever it is allowed to take root and flourish. It doesn't have to be perpetrated by someone in authority or high standing. Humans are highly social creatures; when we see a large enough group doing something, it's in our instincts to also perform that action. It is a social infection and plague that is difficult to root out and destroy.

I'm the grandson of a Polish Jew (his Jewish family line died with him, as only Jewish ancestry is inherited from the mother) and a Latter Day Saint (Mormon, look up Missouri Executive Order 44), my family are no strangers to discrimination, and I oppose it wherever I find it.

It is unacceptable under any circumstance.

This is going to be an argument in which you'll end up calling me a nazi because you'll be unable to perpetuate this safe-space theory? This is vehemently pointless, but just to be a sport and respect your time and effort by replying back.

Ok, here we go.

Discrimination takes a derogatory nuance only when discrimination leads to someone suffering injustice based on that selective filter.

When you pick cherries instead of strawberries, you've done a discrimination.

Preference is discrimination on subjective criteria. This is the cold cutting truth.

The real discrimination is bad when you're left out of something you deserve (have a merit for) because you are of a different kind(kind being race, nationality, skin color, political or personal beliefs). Unless the described above criterias are valid to avoid higher risks, this discrimination is toxic and unfair, requiring justice to be made.

When you're a lesbian and someone calls you a lesbian, it is not derogatory.

When you're a man and someone calls you a man, it is not derogatory.

When you're a black man and someone calls you a black man, it is not derogatory.

It can be perceived as derogatory only if, you, as a lesbian, man, woman, black man, pink man, green man, andorian, tellarite consider that your actual state of being is shameful in some way.

And since there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG contextually in this case with being a lesbian and/or woman, it does not constitute a discriminatory action. The decisions could be made poorly as a man, woman, straight, lesbian, asexual individual.

If some guy reads meinkampf on his lawn, that's history and culture. He is studying and improving his historical perspective. Just like reading any book, including religious or any other books.

Our acts constitute the measure of which we should be judged by.

[Lars2510]

Two points here guys...Shall we tone this down a little. I'd hate for this to get out of control. What's done is done, and let's not let the arguments spread.

There is merit in what you are both saying. One is saying that censorship is not good, the other is saying it is needed when faced with hatred. I agree that we need to censor spiteful comments. However, this was done because the intent behind the comments was believed to be hostile. If this was said in normal conversation, with absolutely zero hostile intent, then this conversation probably wouldn't be happening. He would have got away with someone having a quiet word with him, and asking him to consider his words a little better.

The issue was he continued, despite now knowing people were being upset by his actions. And furthermore he continued to up the ante, thereby indicating an intent that was not friendly. There is never any way to prove 'intent', so obviously this is a grey area by definition. However, based upon the evidence demonstrated in this post, and from what I have heard myself previously, I would certainly put the chance of them having hostile intent well above the 50% chance mark. And at the end of the day, in situations like this, not everyone is going to come out happy. You've just got to try and make as many people satisfied as possible, while upsetting as few people as possible. Not always possible, but I think the FEO did a good job (personally), as I understand things got quite heated. And no-one wants to be dealing with heated discussion on a friendly community website.

So basically what I'm saying is, you are both right i guess.... Not sure I said it all right, but I'm hoping you get the idea of what I meant

[Lars2510]

Whilst in part you are correct, what you're missing here is social cues. By the way this ultimately went down with the whole strathkin situation, there is a clear intent in malice in his words. If you understand the social context, you will clearly see that Starthkins choice of words wear meant to offend. There was absolutely no need to emphesise on Three's disability and sexuality in this matter. This is like if someone would boil down the community manager of a company to only his appearance out of anger because the company removed a feature of a game.

Sorry buddy, clearly I didn't say things as eloquently as I meant. This was sort of what I meant...he had the 'intent' to offend, and that was what made him nasty. If he had meant no harm, he would have apologised, or even just stopped this sort of talk. He obviously didn't, and therefore was hostile and needed dealing with

I've never been that good with putting this sort of things into words, I tend to think really fast, and end up writing a great waffling essay.

[Lars2510]

oops, my mistake. sorry again

[guintiger]

A quote that kept running through my mind as I read this thread - "The right to swing your fists ends where the other guy's nose begins."

[casualsto]

A quote that kept running through my mind as I read this thread - "The right to swing your fists ends where the other guy's nose begins."

Not bad. Yet some mouths and chins wiggle closer than the nose, so it's sometimes an accidental punch-out than a boxing match.

Censoring and policing gives moderation a bad name.
And to the ones trying to enforce this.

[Mack]

It can be perceived as derogatory only if, you, as a lesbian, man, woman, black man, pink man, green man, andorian, tellarite consider that your actual state of being is shameful in some way.

And since there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG contextually in this case with being a lesbian and/or woman, it does not constitute a discriminatory action. The decisions could be made poorly as a man, woman, straight, lesbian, asexual individual.

Hypothetical speaking, if anyone would come to someone's face, call them 'gay', say its not wrong or not being insulting but continue calling them 'gay'. This person is being provocative. They are trying to boil someone. They are in-fact, doing their damn best well to piss someone off.

If this person would reason with "Oh I'm not, its you who thinks this is derogatory" - well, whatever helps you sleep at night as that's what you're made of, but guess what? You're still clearly displaying an intent to piss someone off with the context you keep using this and referencing someone. There's something call social courtesy which will not hide behind as many definitions and filters you choose to bring to your aid.

And I would ignore such a person only for so long before finally acting on it.

Example, my best friend is a divorcee. I will never-ever, even as a joke, call her a widow. Because sure by your logic I'm contextually not insulting her. But you know what? In the social circle of things, you observe self-discipline and caution to not hurt the people you actually care about. You think before you let words slip out, rather than run to wikipedia or thesaurus for definitions to defend your case. Those definitions will not at the end of the day be any excuse for why I hurt their feelings. It's also basic empathy 101.

The same is in a community. You watch what you say, else you reap what you sow.

[Haseo]

WOW i never new he was like this WTF! i knew he was a little odd going on random subjects for hours but thats messed up!

[guintiger]

Not bad. Yet some mouths and chins wiggle closer than the nose, so it's sometimes an accidental punch-out than a boxing match.

Censoring and policing gives moderation a bad name.
And to the ones trying to enforce this.

This comes back to what someone else mentioned earlier - intent. If someone were to be flailing around having a seizure and while in the throes of their fit they hit someone, should they be held accountable for assault? Conversely, if someone were to be angry at another person and in their anger threw a punch connecting to the other's face, are they to be held accountable? One instance was an accident while the other was intentional. While the resulting damage to the other person was similar, the events leading to the injuries were very different. Intent and context should always be considered, which is why I appreciate the transparency leadership has shown here.