||12-08-2012 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Zezune
Innocent until proven guilty.
You are punishing someone for a cultural thing, thats as ****ed up as calling people ****ers in the first place. You'd be punished right along with him for being intolerant.
The guy clearly acknowledged he had issues and let his team know. Grow up you hypocrite.
Racial slurs clearly fall under "offensive language" If my parents never taught me it isn't okay to curse in public, that doesn't make it okay for me to curse in public, it makes me ignorant. As for "innocent until proven guilty" you can see right in the screenshot, he used a racial slur, thus he is guilty of using a racial slur, thus he is guilty of offensive language.
As a group, you need to set clear "These things are wrong, these things are okay" you can't say "If you are (or in this case simply claim to be) *this* skin tone, you can do these things, but *those* skin tones can only do *those* things". That is basically legislating racism at that point. The only system you can reasonable enforce, is to set up a defined group of actions that are bad, and then hold people accountable for them. Personally, I see no reason that racial slurs should be on the list of things we pardon, so given that this person is clearly using foul language, and was reported by his team for doing so, I'd have easily punished them, if I'd had the case.
Really? Sorry I don't buy that you're allowed to subject others to things they reasonably find offensive, because your subset doesn't find them offensive. You need to go by the general consensus on civility for these things. After all, if i pulled up a bunch of people from the old folks home, they would likely tell me I can call all black people "boy". But that doesn't make it anywhere near acceptable.