This CHUD has spent the whole weekend spamming this in the official Steam Deck group chat. Utter cesspit.

  • radiouser@crazypeople.onlineOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    The context removes all ambiguity. Spamming a slur in a public forum isn’t a debate about the word; it’s an attack on the community. The proof is in the outcome: hundreds of people have left the chat due to Valve’s non-existent moderation.

      • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Regardless of whether you think slurs are “made up” or not, free speech absolutism is an open invitation to bigotry. That’s why so many libertarians & right wingers are into the idea.

      • radiouser@crazypeople.onlineOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        All words are “made up”, but with respect, that observation misses the key point. The spam is the delivery method, but the slur is what makes this an act of targeted hate and harassment, not just a nuisance.

        Dismissing the word’s power ignores the very real historical and social weight it carries; weight the spammer is intentionally leveraging to cause maximum harm. It’s not a coincidence they chose that specific word.

        I believe I’ve been clear on why this distinction matters, so I’ll leave it at that.

          • radiouser@crazypeople.onlineOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            You’ve perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn’t ‘given’ by individuals being sensitive; it’s inherited from the word’s historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.

            To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.

            Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.

          • zqps@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            It’s not in any individual’s power to take that away though. And even if that personal choice were meaningfully possible, you’d put that on thousands of people suffering harassment rather than the few doing it?

            That’s just handing public spaces over to oppressors.

            You may have heard the line about the nazi bar.